Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Tinned Salmon (Distribution)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food, as tinned salmon has been scarce for a considerable period, when the next distribution is likely to take place.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): On 21st March next.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make sure that on this occasion less goes to catering establishments and more to housewives?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member can rest assured that it will be fairly distributed.

Commander Donaldson: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend estimate how much is to be imported from British Columbia during the current year?

Major Lloyd George: Of the allocation which I have just announced, I should think that 72 per cent. will be Canadian.

Flour (Improvers)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food if a suitable substitute has yet been found for agene in flour for human or animal consumption.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) on 25th January.

Mr. Dodds: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when a decision on this long awaited matter is likely to be made?

Major Lloyd George: We shall come to a decision as soon as possible. I am sure the hon. Member appreciates that some very complicated and important questions have to be dealt with in this matter, which is why it is taking a long time. Experiments are involved, the results of which have to be watched with great care. I can assure the hon. Member that we are doing everything we can to expedite the matter.

Meat Ration (Value)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food the value of the present meat ration in terms of 1948 prices.

Major Lloyd George: About 1s. 2d.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the figure which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given, and the likelihood of another increase in the not too distant future, is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a little concerned about this matter, in view of the undertakings about reducing the cost of living?

Major Lloyd George: I have been rather kind to the hon. Gentleman, because in 1948, which he chose, the meat ration varied between 1s. and 6d. I would also point out—and I am sure that he can confirm this figure through the wholesale societies—that 10 lb. more meat was consumed per person in 1953 than in the year referred to.

Food Prices

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he is now able to give an estimate of the amount by which the price of rationed foods will rise when these are derationed and decontrolled later in the year.

Major Lloyd George: I cannot add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on 9th November last.

Mr. Lewis: That was no reply at all, neither is that which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just given. Are we to understand that the Minister has no idea just how high these prices will rise? Are we to take it that old age pensioners and those with low incomes are to be deprived of their rations when prices rise astronomically, as has been prophesied? May I have an answer?

Major Lloyd George: I have answered the hon. Member twice, as I have told him.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, compared with November, 1951, in November, 1953, the price of bacon was up 1s. 1½d. per lb., bread up 3d. on a 3½-lb. loaf, meat up 4d. per lb., milk up 2d. a quart, butter up 10d. per lb., cheese 1s., margarine and cooking fat, 4d. per lb., and, since November, 1953, tea has risen in price, coffee has risen by 1s. 10d. per lb. and sugar by 2½d. per lb.; and whether he will reintroduce price control and take such further action which will ensure the restoration of these food prices to their November, 1951, level.

Major Lloyd George: As I said in the House on 9th November last, Her Majesty's Government believe that decontrol will enable efficient private trading and effective competition to serve the best interests of all consumers in respect of quantity, quality and price. I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the stability of the Food Section of the Retail

Price Index during the past year as compared with the year 1951.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the prices of basic foodstuffs are continually rising and that the index to which he refers takes account of items which are bought only very occasionally? If these prices have risen by these amounts, are we to take it that when the remaining commodities are derationed they will rise in price by the same amount?

Major Lloyd George: As I must repeat, there is only one possible method of judging food prices, and that is the index. I notice that the hon. Member does not disregard the index because he has a Question down to the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, No. 47, in which he accepts the cost-of-living index. The only figures we can possibly give are those from the Food Section of the cost-of-living index, which is common both to the previous Administration and to this Administration. The fact is that it has remained steady for the whole of this year and has dropped four points since last June.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is it not a fact that in the case of bacon and cheese, 10d. of this rise should have been imposed before the General Election but that hon. Members opposite did not put it on because of the Election?

Major Lloyd George: As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, there should have been an increase of 10d. on cheese and 10d. on bacon, but it was not convenient at the time to impose it.

Mr. Dodds: In addition to looking at the Retail Price Index, has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ever looked at a grocery order book of a housewife in order to check up the price increases which have taken place?

Major Lloyd George: It is very simple, as more than one hon. Member has discovered, to select any item which has increased in price. For instance, cheese is such an item. But when we are considering the cost of living, proper weight is given in the index to necessary foods. This system was devised by hon. Members opposite. All we have done is to adopt what I assume they found to be a good thing. The figures which I am giving to the House, and which I will continue to give, are on a comparable


basis; and, on a comparable basis, they have remained steady this year and they have dropped four points since last June.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that exaggeration of the cost of living is now practically the only thing left in the Labour Party's armoury?

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentieman say specifically, yes or no, whether the price increases set out one by one in the Question are correctly or incorrectly set out?

Major Lloyd George: I have not worked through them all, although I am prepared to accept them, but it has nothing whatever to do with what I am saying. I assume that hon. Members opposite took some interest in the lower paid working-class when they were in office, and I assume, therefore, that they would not have introduced an index which did not fairly reflect the cost of living. Having done so then, they cannot now complain because I follow the same practice.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Food if he can give an estimate of the probable increase or decrease in the price of basic foodstuffs during the next 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively; and to what extent his anticipation a year ago of the then prospective price of basic foodstuffs has been fulfilled.

Major Lloyd George: I am not prepared to speculate on future price movements, but I have no reason to think that they will all be in one direction.
As regards the second part of the Question I do not know to what anticipation of mine the hon. Member refers, but the Food section of the Retail Price Index rose by only a fraction of one point during 1953, which reflects a very satisfactory degree of price stability as compared with any period since the end of the war.

Mr. Sorensen: While that may be so, are we to take it that the Minister has in his Department no estimates of possible fluctuations in prices in forthcoming months? Do I understand that a year ago there were no such assumptions as to the future?

Major Lloyd George: We have to be careful about these assumptions, because

I remember assumptions from hon. Members opposite about a 10d. egg which have hardly been sustained.

Mr. Sorensen: That has nothing to do with my question. I asked whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has any information such as that which I sought. Will he be kind enough to answer the Question?

Major Lloyd George: I have answered the Question. I am not prepared to speculate on future price movements because so much depends on the cost of raw materials—on whether the price of raw materials goes up or down. Some prices may go up, other prices may come down, which is what has happened in the last year.

Strawberries (Vitamins)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Food how much vitamin C is present in fresh strawberries; and how muchis left in strawberry jam of the full fruit standard after the pulp has been impregnated with sulphur dioxide and stored until the mash is boiled to remove brown discolouration.

Major Lloyd George: The average vitamin C content of fresh strawberries is 256 milligrams per lb. That of mashed, sulphited, stored pulp depends largely on factors other than the addition of sulphur dioxide, which helps to preserve vitamin C. The vitamin C content of jam made from such pulp cannot, therefore, be stated precisely.

Dr. Stross: The Minister is not being fair to the House in that answer. He has not taken into account the prolonged boiling to which the mash has to be subjected in order to get rid of the sulphur discolouration. Cannot he show in what way this pulp deteriorates in vitamin C? When shall we get back to pre-war practice and forbid this preservative altogether?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member has me on very weak ground in this matter, which is a very technical one, but I understand that sulphur dioxide helps to preserve vitamin C, and that all cooking processes result in a loss of from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. of vitamin C.

Dr. Stross: In view of that reply, in which the Minister stated that from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. of vitamin C disappears in boiling, will he not put a stop to this fraud on the public?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think that jam is a very good source of vitamin C. The best source is the fresh fruit which is available.

Bread Making (Fats)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Food if he will give an estimate of the saving of natural fat which is no longer used in bread making as a result of the modern use of chemical fat savers; and which are the principal chemicals used for this purpose.

Major Lloyd George: The principal substance of this kind used by bakers is glycerinated fat. I regret that I cannot estimate the resultant saving in natural fat.

Dr. Stross: Could not the Minister help us by making a guess at it? Is he not aware that in America, some years ago, the figure reached approximately 115 million lb.? Taking account of the difference in population, would it not be reasonable to say that our figure would be about one-third of that amount?

Major Lloyd George: I should not care to state a figure without notice. It is, of course, in periods of shortages that these kinds of substitutes are encouraged. As we are, I hope, practically approaching the time when we shall have no more shortage of fat, it will be all right.

Eggs

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food whether he will institute an inquiry into the operation of the system of the payment of cash allowances to egg packing stations.

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.

Mr. Willey: I do not want to be unduly critical of the Minister's failure, but ought he not to explain to his own back benchers how he has abolished food subsidy on eggs by doubling it? He ought to explain how the cash payment to the wholesalers, which was 3s. in September, became 13s. in December. He ought to explain how this cash allowance is still being paid when the profit margins of the

wholesalers are bigger than they have ever been before.

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, is slightly exaggerating the case. The costs to the packing stations of collection and delivery and the like come to ⅛d., and the wholesalers' margin is just under ¼d.

Mr. Willey: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman considered what the grocers have had to say about how the wholesalers' margins have increased, and how they get the cash allowance, while the grocers' margins have been squeezed?

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he has considered details, which have been sent to him, about the retailing of eggs; and when he will take off all restrictions.

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, and no doubt my hon. Friend has now received the letter which I have sent him. Current regulations affecting the retailing of eggs are among the matters now under discussion between the Government and the National Farmers' Unions. I cannot anticipate the form of the permanent arrangements for the marketing of eggs which will emerge from these discussions.

Sir W. Smithers: How much longer will my right hon. and gallant Friend continue to try to do the impossible by trying to overcome the law of supply and demand?

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Food the number of eggs imported in long hundreds, during the last six months of 1952 and 1953; how many were Empire produced: and how many foreign.

Major Lloyd George: The total numbers of eggs imported during the last six months of 1952 and 1953 were 5,842,700 and 6,708,300 long hundreds respectively. Of these 2,099,300 and 2,078,700 long hundreds, respectively, were Commonwealth produced and 3,743,400 and 4,629,600 long hundreds were foreign.

Mr. Crouch: Have all the eggs which we have been importing been sold, or has the Department some in reserve?

Major Lloyd George: There has been a smaller proportion of imported eggs sold.

Mrs. Mann: Would the Minister explain this for our guidance? We are familiar with the Old Hundredth, but what are "long hundreds"?

Major Lloyd George: A long hundred is 120.

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Food if he will give an estimate of how many million dozen shell eggs were produced in the United Kingdom in the months of October, November and December, 1953; and the proportion which went through the licensed packing stations each month.

Major Lloyd George: Through packing stations in this period 93·6 million dozen eggs were sold. But I regret information is not available as to home-produced eggs disposed of otherwise.

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Food what the guaranteed price for eggs cost his Department during each month, October, November and December, 1953.

Major Lloyd George: Approximately £0·8 million in October, £0·6 million in November, and £2·5 million in December, 1953.

Mr. Holt: In view of the likelihood of an increasing proportion going to the packing stations this year, would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman use his influence with the Ministry of Agriculture to see that the guaranteed price is progressively lowered?

Major Lloyd George: The prices are decided at reviews which are held annually, and all these things are taken into consideration. The next review is to take place very shortly.

Grain Sales (Trading Deficit)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food the trading deficit to the latest available date on the sale of grain by his Department during the financial year 1953–54.

Major Lloyd George: Up to 31st December, 1953, the trading deficit is estimated at £8·1 million.

Mr. Willey: Does the Minister realise that his losses on grains are making chicken feed of the expenditure on groundnuts?

Slaughterhouses

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Food if he will publish the Interim. Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughtering.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) and to him on Friday, 29th January, 1954.

Mr. Peyton: What consultations have there been between my right hon. and gallant Friend and the local authorities? Can he give an assurance that he will, give the maximum assistance to the local authorities in the discharge of what is a very heavy burden of responsibility?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Food how many slaughterhouses will be required when meat is derationed later this year; and what arrangements are being made to ensure that adequate facilities will then be available.

Major Lloyd George: It is not possible, to make a firm estimate. It will be for local authorities and other interests concerned to survey the position in their own areas in the light of the recently published Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Slaughterhouses. I hope shortly to meet representatives of the authorities and other interests.

Mr. Peyton: While appreciating the complexity of this problem, may I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether he is reasonably confident that adequate premises will be available when the day comes for the derationing of meat, because this is a vital matter?

Major Lloyd George: That was the purpose of getting the interim Report that we might be assured that we should have sufficient accommodation.

Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give as much latitude as possible to the local authorities in making these arrangements, and not keep too much responsibility in his Department?

Major Lloyd George: This is largely, if not entirely, a responsibility of the local authorities.

Mr. Shurmer: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman considered the chaos that will arise when the derationing of meat comes about, so far as the slaughterhouses are concerned? What will be the position of the large centres? Are they to supply the surrounding towns, or are they to have their own slaughterhouses? Will the big wholesale butchers start again, having regard to the fact that this work is being done by contract?

Major Lloyd George: There are two problems here. The long-term problem is that of moderate concentration, and that has been accepted by both sides of the House. The short-term problem is that of getting sufficient slaughterhouses so that when decontrol of meat takes place this year adequate space will be available.

Family Diets

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food what action he proposes to take, following the findings of the recent national food survey that the diet of families where there are four or more children has fallen below the national average, to ensure that such families are adequately fed.

Major Lloyd George: As young children have smaller needs than adults for certain foods, the consumption of households with four or more children naturally tends to fall below the national average. The figures to which the hon. Member refers relate to 1951. I am watching the position with care.

Mr. Janner: Has there not recently been an investigation by the British Medical Association into this matter? Is not the Minister aware that because of the rising prices of foods a number of people are falling below—[Hon. Members: "No."] Yes, the prices of necessary foods have risen. Is the Minister aware that, in consequence, some families are living below what is considered to be the requisite nutritional standard?

Major Lloyd George: I am watching this position very carefully. It is not a matter that can be treated otherwise than seriously. In view of what he said about the rising prices, and as his Question refers to 1951, I would remind the hon. Member that that was a time when his right hon. Friends were in complete charge of the situation.

Dr. Summerskill: Would not the Minister agree that the consumption of milk has fallen during the last two years? As the amount of milk a family consumes increases proportionately with the number of children, what does he propose to do about it?

Major Lloyd George: The welfare scheme is not affected in any way. The drop in the consumption of milk is far too small to have any serious effects.

Coffee Prices

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food whether he will reimpose controls on the retail price of coffee.

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Why not? Comparing the highest price of coffee now with the highest price before controls were removed, does not the Minister think that something could be done to allow people to purchase their commodities at reasonable prices?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman must not lose his sense of proportion in this matter. The amount of coffee drunk in this country is 1lb. per head of the population per annum. It may be that the consumption of coffee has fallen because of the decontrol of tea. Whether we had control or not the price would have had to go up, because the price of coffee in Brazil, for instance, rose between 1952 and 1954 by over £6 10s. cwt. Whether hon. Members like it or not, they must realise that if people want this commodity they have to pay the price for it.

Margarine

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food the minimum and maximum prices of margarine when this is taken off the ration book.

Major Lloyd George: On the removal of price control and the reintroduction of brands, margarine will be sold competitively at prices varying according to type and quality and the movement of world prices for oils and oilseeds.

Mrs. Mann: Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman indicate the minimum or the maximum, or does he not intend to impose a maximum?

Major Lloyd George: There will be no minimum and there will be no maximum when decontrol takes place, which, if I may say so, is a very good thing. There will be a margarine available at about the present price and of the present quality.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Food what are the main oils used in the manufacture of margarine; their respective food values; to what extent vitamins are added in the course of manufacture; and if he will publish the respective nutritional merits of 1 lb. of standard margarine and butter, respectively.

Major Lloyd George: As the reply is necessarily rather technical and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the information in the Official Report.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is likely to be the standard form of margarine available? Would he consider placing on the labels of these margarines some indication of their nutritional value, so that people may know exactly what they are buying?

Major Lloyd George: It is generally accepted that the fat and energy content of butter and margarine are about the same. After derationing, better quality margarine will be available and there will also be a margarine exactly the same as that used today, which is called the standard margarine. I have not considered the question of putting anything on the labels, but I will look into that matter.

Mr. Chetwynd: Are we to assume from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer that he intends margarine for the less well-to-do and butter for the more well-to-do, if the food values are the same?

Following is the information:

The main oils used in the manufacture of margarine are coconut, palm kernel, palm and groundnut oils, which are of similar food value. Margarine sold for domestic purposes contains 450–550 internationalunits of vitamin A, and 90 international units of vitamin D per ounce. Vitamins are not added to margarine used for manufacture.

The fat content and energy value of butter and margarine are almost the same. The vitamin content of butter varies with place of origin and season of production. An average

vitamin A value is 14,000 international units per lb. compared with 8,000 in special margarine, and an average vitamin D value is 270 international units per lb. compared with 1,440 in special margarine.

Butter

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food if he will give an assurance that the supplies of butter will be adequate to meet the demand when derationed; and if he can state the price.

Major Lloyd George: On present forecasts increased supplies of butter will be available this year, but butter cannot be considered in isolation. The total supply of fats will, I am satisfied, be ample when rationing ends.
>
As regards the last part of the Question, like my predecessors, I cannot forecast price changes.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I am not asking about the overall quantity of fats? I am asking about butter. Is it that he neither knows nor cares?

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food the present unit subsidy on butter.

Major Lloyd George: About 4d. per lb.

Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise how grossly unfair he is in taking off this subsidy, because in December last, at the old price, 1½ million rations were not taken up? Under the Labour Government we reached a ration of 5 oz., which has never been reached under this Government. Is it not clear that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is decontrolling at the expense of the housewife who will not be able to afford butter?

Major Lloyd George: That is not in accordance with the facts for, as the hon. Member knows as well as I do, among old-age pensioners, of whom hon. Members opposite talk a great deal, the whole of the butter ration is taken up.

Mr. Assheton: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend appreciate, as I am sure he does, that it takes 3½ gallons of milk to make 1 lb. of butter and that milk is more than 3s. a gallon?

Mr. Willey: In view of what his right hon. Friend has just said, will the Minister reconsider his decision and retain the subsidy?

Major Lloyd George: Even with the subsidy off there are very few countries where butter will be as cheap as it is in this country. The hon. Member always chooses figures which suit his case, but even without the subsidy butter will be very much cheaper here than in most other countries.

Mr. Gower: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? How can the Table accept so many Questions which suggest that the cost of living has gone up and, at the same time, accept Question No. 47, which suggests that the cost of living has gone down? In one case this has been done by the same hon. Member.

Mr. Lewis: Before you reply, Mr. Speaker, may I say it is because I am aware that prices have not gone down in the Kitchen Committee's Department and that they do not accept the figures in the way I do, that I put that Question down; and knowing that we must take the official figures, whether we believe in them or not, I had to put the official figures in the Question.

Mr. Speaker: We will try to get to Question No. 47 and see what is the answer.

Departmental Officials

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food the number of personnel under his jurisdiction on 31st December, 1951, and 1952, and at the latest available date, respectively.

Major Lloyd George: The number was 17,254 on 1st January, 1954, as compared with 22,771 on 31st December, 1952, and 26,232 on 31st December, 1951.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that I am glad to hear that the number of people who are producing nothing is being reduced, so that they can be returned to productive employment?

Fish Prices

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Food, in view of the high price of fish now prevailing, what action he proposes to take to prevent the incidence of scarcity through bad fishing conditions being aggravated by monopoly; and, in view of the fact that the price of cod is higher this year as compared with similar seasonal conditions prevailing last year, if he will reimpose control.

Major Lloyd George: The recent scarcity and high price of fish are due to bad weather conditions on the fishing grounds.
The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."

Mr. Sorensen: Am I to take it that the Minister attributes the increase in the price of fish entirely to bad weather conditions? Is it not also true that one of the factors operating here is the monopolistic power of certain traders?

Major Lloyd George: There is no such question in the month of January. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the reason for the high price of fish today is the adverse weather which is always experienced in this country during particular months, and that January was one of the worst months we have had. There were 145 gale warnings during January compared with 91 in January last year. I do not think that anyone who knows the North Sea at this time of the year will think that the fishermen are being overpaid.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that it is evident from all these Questions on food prices that there are by-elections pending?

Major Lloyd George: If it is any help in the next by-election, I am glad to say that prices this morning have dropped compared with last week, in respect of cod, from 10s. to 12s. 10d. to 6s. 6d. to 8s. 6d.; and haddock from 11s. to 16s. 4d. to 6s. to 11s. 3d. There is a drop; and there is no doubt that the high prices were due practically entirely to the bad weather in the last few weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Ordnance Factory Inspection (Inquiry Report)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has yet received the report of the committee appointed by himself and the First Lord of the Admiralty to inquire into the duplication of inspection in Royal ordnance factories.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Albu: Can the Minister say whether the committee has accepted the


recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates to abolish the duplication of inspections in Royal ordnance factories?

Mr. Sandys: The committee made a number of detailed recommendations designed to secure economy in the inspection staff, and, with very minor exceptions, these recommendations have been adopted. Its report does not reveal any actual duplication: that is to say, two people doing the same work in the same factory: but it shows that economies are possible, and account is being taken of the recommendations.

Mr. Albu: Will the report be published?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that this is the kind of report that should be published, although there is nothing very secret about it. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in this matter, and if he would like me to send him a summary of the action taken. I will gladly do so.

Sir Ian Clark Hutchison: In view of the importance of the inspection of explosives for the Navy, will my right hon. Friend publish the report or make it available for those of us who take an interest in this matter?

Mr. Sandys: I will send my hon. Friend a summary of the action taken.

Aircraft Industry (Machine Tools)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to ensure the provision of large forging presses and the development of suitable machine tools for the aircraft industry.

Mr. Sandys: The Ministry of Supply is constantly in touch with the aircraft constructors with regard to new production methods and the development of new plant. In view of the very high cost of these large forging presses, the possibility of Government assistance is being considered.

Mr. Albu: Has the Minister seen the report of the conference on aircraft production organised by the Institute of Production Engineers, at Southampton, and the remarks of Mr. Woodley, of Vickers Armstrong, about the inadequacy

of the present arrangements for the development of machine tools for the aircraft industry? If so, will he consider using some of the vacant space at Woolwich Arsenal for their development instead of placing contracts with private industry?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the last part of that question goes a little wide of the original Question. In general, I am well aware of the importance of these larger plants for production, but, on the other hand, we must bear in mind these heavy forging presses and ancilliary equipment cost about £10 million. We have also to consider other methods of achieving the same results; if we do not we are liable to get our fingers burned quite badly.

Mr. Albu: Is the Minister not aware that practically the whole of the research and development by the aircraft industry is carried out on Government account? Is it not hard that the Government should also have to subsidise research and development for the manufacture of the machine tools which are to produce the aircraft?

Mr. Sandys: That is why we are going very gingerly about it.

Steel Plate (Production)

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is satisfied that existing capacity for the production of steel plate is adequate for the country's needs.

Mr. Sandys: Plate production in the United Kingdom increased by over 200,000 tons in 1953 and I expect some further increase this year. In the course of its study of the industry's development plans the Iron and Steel Board is considering what expansion of steel plate-making capacity is necessary to meet foreseeable demands.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not a fact that in a situation in which we are still dependent on imports for some part of our supply of steel plates, the industry is showing reluctance to lay down another plate mill? Is this the way in which to make our balance of payments position more secure?

Mr. Sandys: You cannot erect this heavy steel plate plant overnight, as the hon. Member knows. There are a number


of projects going forward which will take time to mature. With regard to being dependent on imports, he is probably aware that at the present time we are exporting more steel plates than we are importing.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are now importing, at considerable expense, particular types of steel plate, particularly boiler plate? Is it not time that we found some way of expanding the production capacity of the firms concerned?

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer I gave, he would have heard that it was expanded last year. It is to expand further this year and the Iron and Steel Board is considering what further expansion is necessary. Meanwhile, I welcome the imports because they help to bridge the gap.

280 Rifle (Development Expenditure)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Supply what expenditure has been incurred in the production and testing of the ·280 rifle.

Mr. Sandys: I regret that figures are not available. The ·280 rifle was developed, produced and tested at several establishments, together with various other weapon projects. It would be difficult to assess what proportion of the expenditure of these establishments was incurred in connection with this particular weapon. Nor would it be practicable to separate the cost of work on the ·280 rifle from the work on the later ·300 type.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a shocking thing that we are spending a great deal of time and money on producing the best rifle in the world only for it to be thrown overboard because of the Prime Minister's desire to have a rifle with a butt?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate the debate which is about to take place. Whatever money may have been spent on development of the British version, there would, of course, be no economy in adopting it since the Belgian company does not intend to charge us any Royalty for the manufacturing rights of their rifle.

Belgian F.N. Rifle

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Supply when it is proposed to produce the Belgian F.N. rifle in this country; and what orders have been placed for its purchase from Belgian sources.

Mr. Sandys: It is still too early to give a precise answer to the first half of the hon. Member's Question. With regard to the second half, apart from a few samples, no orders have as yet been placed.

British Aero-Engines (United States Manufacture)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply which types of British aeroplane engines are now being manufactured, under licence, in the United States of America; when the respective agreements were signed; and how many of each type of engine have so far been produced.

Mr. Sandys: Versions of the Tay and Sapphire aero-engines are now being manufactured under licence in the United States of America. The manufacturing licences were granted in 1947 and 1950, respectively. I cannot, of course, disclose production figures for American military engines.

Mr. Beswick: In view of the extraordinary effort and the huge sums of public money which went into the development of these engines, the details of which have been made known to our American competitors,is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that these arrangements are working to the advantage of this country?

Mr. Sandys: The decisions on these two engines were made under the previous Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Are the United States manufacturers of these engines charged a royalty in respect of licences?

Mr. Sandys: Most certainly.

Mr. Beswick: I was not trying to lay blame on one Government or another. I asked a simple question, which is in the public interest, whether the right hon. Gentleman is quite satisfied that these arrangements are working out to the best advantage of this country?

Mr. Sandys: I am quite sure that they are. There is a great deal of interchange


of information and of development knowledge as between the Armed Forces of the United States and of the United Kingdom, and I am quite sure that it is to the mutual advantage of both countries that these arrangements should continue.

Aero-Engines (Research and Development Expenditure)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply the total amount of money spent by his Department, since the war to the last convenient date, on research and development of aero-engines; and to what extent this money has been recovered by repayments after sales by manufacturers.

Mr. Sandys: Almost all our expenditure on aero-engine development has been primarily for military purposes. Information cannot, therefore, be published. Until 1950, the amounts recovered from manufacturers in respect of the sales of engines were not kept separately. These repayments are at present running at the rate of about £1 million a year.

Mr. Beswick: Has the Minister seen the statement by the chairman of the biggest group of aircraft manufacturers, that we are not spending sufficient on research and development and that the Minister's Department is now actuated by timidity and complacency? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept these criticisms?

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the full answer which I gave on this subject last Monday to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly). I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy.

Mr. Jay: Would the Minister agree that the amount of public money which has been spent up to now has been very large indeed? Does he think that a return of £1 million a year is fair?

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman evidently does not know what it is all about. I explained that this expenditure is almost entirely on military types. The return that we get is in the form of military aircraft for our Forces. It is purely a by-product ifwe get anything in the way of repayments in respect of engines developed for military purposes which are subsequently used for civil purposes and then sold abroad.

Piloted Supersonic Flight (Research)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply what research is now being carried out, or is contemplated, in piloted super sonic flight.

Mr. Sandys: A considerable programme of research into the problems of piloted supersonic flight is being undertaken and a number of different types of supersonic Service aircraft are in course of development. I am not, of course, free to give details.

Mr. Beswick: Are we now engaged upon research into piloted supersonic aircraft?

Mr. Sandys: Certainly. That is what the Question was about.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Minister make it clear: are we now engaged in research on piloted supersonic aircraft?

Mr. Sandys: Yes. That is what I said.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Assistance Board Beneficiaries

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the total number of persons receiving payments from the National Assistance Board on 31st December, 1953; and the number of old age pensioners and other recipients of National Insurance benefits included in this total.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): At 15th December, 1953, regular weekly grants of National Assistance were being paid to 1,761,149 persons, of whom 1,227,063 had retirement pensions or other National Insurance benefits. Some of the grants covered the needs of a household containing more than one recipient of a pension or benefit.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware that those figures show an alarming increase over the figures at the end of the previous year? Will he not now consider raising the old age pension payments to take out of National Assistance


large numbers of old people who ought not to be required to apply for it for extra relief?

Mr. Turton: If he examines the figures for this year and previous years, the hon. Member will note that there has been a continuous increase since 1948. The increase in the total number this year is less than the increase in preceding years.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that as these increases go on accumulating it becomes all the more serious? As more than a quarter of the old people are now dependent upon National Assistance, will the Minister not do something about it?

Mr. Turton: One of the reasons for the increase is that the National Assistance scales today are, rightly, at a more generous level than ever before. Another factor is that many of the older people exhausted their savings during the period of inflation from 1947 to 1951.

Mr. Bartley: Is the Minister aware that of the number of retirement pensioners receiving an allowance from the Assistance Board quite a large number also receive an increment in pension under the National Insurance Act, which is taken into account in assessing the allowance from the Board and defeats the purpose of the increment? Will the hon. Gentleman consider disregarding this amount of increment and thus safeguard the purpose of the increment?

Mr. Turton: That would appear to be another question.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Limbless Ex-Service Men (Increasing Disablement)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what progress is being made by the investigations into the problem of increasing disablement suffered by limbless ex-Service men as they get older; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): The vast majority of the medical examinations

requested by the Rock Carling Committee have been concluded and it is hoped to clear the small remainder in the next fortnight or so.
The clinical findings relating to over 5,000 concluded cases are now being collated and the results will be sent to the Committee for consideration as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend would prefer not to prophesy when the investigations, which are of international importance, will be completed. When the final report of the Committee is available, he proposes to study it in consultation with his principal medical advisers and subsequently with his Central Advisory Committee.
With regard to the problem of the ageing pensioner, my right hon. Friend proposes to await the final report of the Committee before reaching a conclusion.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that the disadvantages of the loss of a limb become progressively very much greater as the years go by, and that there will be widespread support for any exceptional treatment which is accorded to these men who have suffered so much in the common cause?

Brigadier Smyth: On existing information, my right hon. Friend has no reason for discriminating between the ageing war amputee and any other type of ageing pensioner. I suggest, however, that we should await the Committee's report.

Personal Case

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why, in view of the independent and responsible medical opinion submitted to him in support of the application by Mr. Aaron Barnes, of Blackburn, for an increased war pension in respect of the amputation of his second leg, he has failed to give this applicant the benefit of the reasonable doubt which exists in his case.

Brigadier Smyth: The consensus of expert medical opinion leaves no room for reasonable doubt that the amputation of Mr. Barnes' right leg in 1953 was not connected with the loss of the left leg in 1917. I have fully explained the position to the hon. Member, both orally and in writing, and, much as I sympathise with Mr. Barnes, I regret that his pension cannot be increased.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this consensus of medical opinion which he has quoted does not include that of an independent specialist of high repute, whose report I have sent him and who expresses the view that the degeneration of Mr. Barnes' right leg might have been associated with the fact that his left leg was amputated as a result of the First World War? Is it not intolerable that an ex-Service man minus both legs should now be getting only a 60 per cent pension?

Brigadier Smyth: As the hon. Lady knows, I have gone into this case very carefully indeed. I have read the reports of the two medical men whose opinions she sent me, and they are very indefinite; they just indicate that it is worth making a claim.
During the last seven years, we have heard of only two cases in which it was claimed that arterio-sclerosis arose in a sound limb as a result of wearing an artificial limb. One of these cases, exactly similar to that of Mr. Barnes, was referred to two independent medical experts, both of whom confirmed the wealth of medical opinion which we have in the Ministry of these cases, to the effect that the wearing of an artificial limb would not cause, aggravate or precipitate the onset of arterio-sclerosis in the sound limb, that the incidence of arterio-sclerosis is certainly no greater among amputees than among civilians who have no wounds at all, and that the average age for the appearance of this disability is 50, whereas Mr. Barnes is 61. I am giving the hon. Lady this reply rather fully, because it is of the greatest interest and concern to amputees all over the country.

Mrs. Castle: Does not the length of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply reveal the guilt that is on his conscience? Is it not a fact that as long as there is any reputable independent medical opinion prepared to say that there is reasonable doubt in a pensioner's case, under the terms of the Royal Warrant the applicant ought to be given the benefit?

Brigadier Smyth: These cases are always distressing, but in this particular case we have a great consensus of medical opinion at all our limb fitting ceintres and at Roehampton Hospital. I have checked the consensus of opinion

with the opinion of our doctors in the Ministry. Mr. Barnes is getting £4 17s. a week from the Ministry, and we will help him in any way we possibly can.

Mrs. Castle: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter later.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Offices, Fife (Closing)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many of his Department's local offices in Fife he proposes to close; the estimated annual saving expected from such closures; what protests he has received about this action; and the nature of the reply sent to those protesting.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Twenty, with a saving of £2,150 a year. So far, five local authorities have objected and my officers are in discussion with them.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister say whether the local authorities or the trade unions were consulted before this policy was decided on? Can he further say how far the policy indicates the ending of the present system of fuel allocation; and thirdly, is he satisfied that the economies resulting from this policy are sufficient to offset the hardship which will be caused to old age pensioners and lower income group people, who will now have to have further recourse to the National Assistance Board for travelling expenses?

Mr. Lloyd: It is most important that we should make every effort to achieve economy in these rationing schemes when they persist, but it is not our intention to cause hardship. That is the reason why discussions with local authorities are now proceeding, and I hope that we shall be able to get an agreed solution in this part of the country, as in so many others.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the Minister answer the first part of my supplementary question? Were the trade unions and local authorities consulted before action was taken?

Mr. Lloyd: No, it is the responsibility of the Government to form a policy for the making of economies, but in the course of carrying out this policy we are consulting the local authorities concerned.

Registrations, County Durham

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of registrations for domestic coal with the National Coal Board and private factors, respectively, for the County of Durham.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Thirty-nine thousand and 355,700.

Coal Board (Registrations)

Mr. Bartley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to state, for each National Coal Board division and for Great Britain as a whole the extent to which the board is the distributing agency for retail of domestic coal supplies; the extent to which this coal distribution by the board has increased since the passing of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946; and how far it is his policy to encourage the board to acquire privately-owned domestic coal selling agencies.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: This is primarily a matter for the National Coal Board under its powers accorded in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act and over Great Britain as a whole, the National Coal Board's share of the domestic coal trade has increased during the last seven years by about one-tenth of 1 per cent.: it now stands at 2·9 per cent.
With permission, I will circulate the figures for particular divisions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Bartley: Is the Coal Board's retail distribution more economic than the privately-owned system of distribution? What difficulty prevents the taking over of this part of the distribution system?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the efficiency of the various retail distribution systems will best be judged by the public themselves when, as we hope, price control and restrictions are soon done away with.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister say what is his answer to the last part of the Question?

Mr. Lloyd: I said that that was primarily a matter for the Coal Board.

Following are the figures:

NUMBER OF REGISTRATIONS WITH THE NATIONAL COAL BOARD FOR DOMESTIC COAL SUPPLIES ON VESTING DATE AND ON 31ST OCTOBER, 1953


National Coal Board Division
Vesting Date (1st January, 1947)
31st October, 1953


Scotland
24,493
20,367


Northern (N. &amp; C.)
73,596
41,190


Durham
37,411


North Eastern
34,152
32,745


North western
159,536
208,583


East Midlands
23,850
29,460


West Midlands
48,901
69,852


South Western
47,673
42,187


South Eastern
603
424


Total Registrations with National Coal Board
412,804
482,219


Total Registrations Great Britain
14,904,554
16,624,231


Percentage: National Coal Board
2·8
2·9

Former Mineowners (Compensation)

Mr. Bartley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what amount of the £203,773,258 compensation paid since 1947 to the previous owners of the coalmining industry represents interest payment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: None, Sir.

Mr. Bartley: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. Can he say whether the whole of this £203 million is chargeable to the industry? If that is so, will he confirm that without this charge the nationalised coal industry would have made a handsome profit since 1947?

Mr. Lloyd: I have answered the Question correctly, but the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is quite a different proposition.

Mr. Shinwell: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point. Is it not true that some part of the amount stated in the Question includes interest paid on the capital sum? Surely, it must do. Surely some interest has been paid.

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir, not included in the figure that has been given.

Mr. Bartley: I understand that £164 million was the valuation on the industry originally, but it is now more than £200 million. There must be some explanation.

Mr. Slater: As the mining industry now belongs to the nation, can the Minister say what considerations the Government have given to this question of compensation being transferred from the mining industry and placed upon the Treasury?

Mr. Lloyd: We are proceeding under the Act passed by the last Government.

Mr. Slater: Are we to take it, then, that no consideration is being given to this aspect of the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING (PRICES)

Mr. Lewis: asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he is aware that the index number of food has shown a decline for the past few months; and what foods, other than eggs, have been reduced in price in the Members' Dining Room and Tea Room during the last few months.

Mr. Steward: I am aware that the price index figure of food, has shown a decline, for the past few months. Although very welcome, the all-round fall has been slight, and while the prices of certain commodities have dropped, the cost of a number of popular items, such as tea, coffee, butter, etc., has risen. A number of dishes in the Members' Dining Room have however, been reduced from 2s. to 1s. 9d., including fillet of cod, blanquette of rabbit, braised heart, etc., and jugged hare from 2s. 6d. to 2s. 3d.

Mr. Lewis: Is not the hon. Gentleman in the same position as the housewife? Is he aware that housewives appreciate that those items which have gone down in price according to the price index figure are those which are bought very occasionally, whereas such things as butter, bacon and cheese have gone up considerably? Are we to take it that that is the reason why there has not been a drop in the price of food in the Members' Dining Room?

Dr. Summerskill: As the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee has gone into great detail in this matter, can he say why, if the price of cooked ham outside this House is 2s. 6d. per ½ lb., he is charging 2s. 6d. in the Tea Room for a very small slice?

Mr. Steward: The price we pay for ham is 6s. 6d. and it works out at five portions to the pound. There is a lot of waste, and it does not leave a great deal of margin, but I would inform the right hon. Lady that the price of ham is under review.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Would it not be a very good thing if the price of food in the House of Commons was put up all round in order that we could repay the taxpayer for the losses sustained in the past?

Mr. S. Silverman: May we take it from the answer of the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee that he does not agree with the Minister of Food that the price of bacon, bread, meat, milk, butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fat is irrelevant to a consideration of the cost of living?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH NATIONALS, SUEZ CANAL ZONE (ATTACKS)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the Egyptian Government are taking all possible steps to prevent attacks on British nationals in the Canal Zone and to apprehend and punish offenders when attacks do occur.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I am not satisfied that the Egyptian Government have throughout taken all possible steps to prevent attacks on British nationals in the Canal Zone, or to apprehend and punish offenders. During the months of November and December there was a period during which there were no serious incidents, but, as the House is aware, that period was followed by a series of deplorable happenings including the murders of British soldiers. Her Majesty's Government protested in the most vigorous terms, and for about the last 10 days, as far as I am aware, there has been no further serious incident.

Mr. Remnant: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Egyptian Government that the British people are not in the least impressed by this thuggery, whether it is Egyptian Government sponsored or not, and that if they wish to continue negotiations with Her Majesty's Government, the necessary preliminary is to keep and maintain order in their own house?

Mr. Lloyd: As I have told my hon. Friend, Her Majesty's Government protested in the most vigorous terms and, since the date of those protests, the situation has been much better.

ANGLO-JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. H. Wilson (by Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the trade agreement signed with the Japanese Government on Friday, 29th January, 1954.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): As I have been in charge of these negotiations on behalf of my right hon. Friend during his absence, he has asked me to make a statement.
Negotiations with representatives of the Japanese Government were concluded on 29th January when the Sterling Payments Agreement between the U.K. and Japan was renewed for one year until 31st December, 1954.
At the same time, there was a review of trade between Japan and the sterling area, in the light of Japan's heavy balance of payments deficit and acute shortage of sterling, which, in the absence of any action, would have compelled Japan to impose heavy restrictions on her purchases of sterling area goods. Her Majesty's Government considered it important to prevent a further intensification of these restrictions on trade, which were already having serious effects on a number of U.K. exports, visible and invisible.
As a result of this review, the value of British and colonial exports to Japan in 1954 should now be maintained at the 1953 level. The Japanese have also given satisfactory assurances on their imports of certain commodities of special interest to the U.K. and colonial exporters, on the treatment to be accorded to her

imports of sterling oil and also on certain aspects of her shipping policy. For our part, having regard to Japan's shortage of sterling, we recognised that if this level of purchases were to be maintained, Japan must have further opportunities of earning sterling from her own exports.
While we were in balance of payments difficulties with Japan, Colonial Governments assisted us by restricting their purchases of Japanese goods to a level below what they would otherwise have imported. Now that such balance of payments difficulties no longer exist, and in view of the Japanese assurances on trade, we have informed the Colonial Governments that there is no longer, on these grounds, any need to restrict their imports of Japanese goods. In 1954, they will, therefore, be able to import up to their own estimated requirements (as previously notified to us), both for internal consumption and for the entrepôt trade where that exists.
We are also establishing limited import quotas in the U.K. for certain Japanese exports of a traditional character. These quotas are very small and are for one year only. In addition, there will be an import of £3 million worth of Japanese grey cloth for processing here and re-export. This figure itself is substantially below the quantities imported for 1950 and 1951.
I should like to make it clear that the tariff position generally, and Imperial Preference in particular, are in no way affected by this Agreement. Her Majesty's Government consider that this Agreement will be to the benefit of United Kingdom trade as a whole and of the sterling area generally.

Mr. Wilson: Since this Agreement is not merely a renewal of previous Agreements, but contains entirely new principles, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman two questions. First, in view of the acute anxiety with which this Agreement is regarded, not only in Lancashire but in the Potteries and in other export districts, will he tell the House why there has apparently been no consultation with those areas, despite the fact that under the Labour Government we consulted all those interests before making any of these Agreements, especially where Japan was concerned? Secondly, while I am sure the whole House would not wish to use our position with the Colonies to force them to buy


British goods if they did not want to, will the hon. Gentleman tell us why there has been this abrupt reversal in relation to colonial imports from Japan, instead of easing the situation by a gradual in-increase of quotas at a time when Lancashire is attempting to alter her marketing methods to meet colonial needs and at a time when Japanese competition is likely to be particularly virulent because she is denied her natural market in China?

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to deal with those points, which, I know, are of importance and are causing some concern. On the first point, there is no change of principles either in the Agreement or underlying the Agreement. Secondly, on the point of consultation, I am informed that it has not been the principle either of this Government or of our predecessors to consult whole industries before increasing import quotas—for example, in the case of the liberalisation of European imports, I am sure that consultation did not take place. However, I understand that the President of the Board of Trade, on 21st January, informed the Consultative Committee for Industry, on which both sides are presented, of the probable course of the negotiations.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to pottery. To get this matter into perspective, I should say that the quota for this year for pottery imports represents rather less than one three-hundredth part of the total home sales of pottery.
So far as the Colonies are concerned. I know that there is considerable concern here and that this is a very important matter, but Her Majesty's Government had to face the situation that there are no longer any balance of payments reasons for asking the Colonial Governments to import fewer Japanese goods and more Lancashire goods. We know that the Colonial Governments will understand that it is in their interest to maintain their long-term connection with Lancashire, but we did not feel that in these circumstances—of no balance of payments difficulties remaining—we could ask the Colonies, on those grounds, to restrict their imports of Japanese goods. We have, therefore, felt it right to leave it to them to fix their import quotas.

Mr. Assheton: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that this Agreement, which is designed, no doubt, to improve the trade of the whole Empire, has not sacrificed the interests of Lancashire to any degree?

Mr. Maudling: I am certain that this Agreement will improve the trade prospects of the Empire as a whole and of the United Kingdom as a whole. We shall have a substantial surplus on our trade with Japan from the United Kingdom. So far as Lancashire is concerned, I understand that the grey cloth to be imported is a type of cloth which, on the whole, it will be useful for the finishing end of the trade in Lancashire to have. As my right hon. Friend will have noticed from the announcement, all of this grey cloth is being re-exported, and if it were not processed and re-exported by this country it would probably be done by some other country.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of the repercussions that this pact may have, not only on the export prospects of Lancashire but also upon the export prospects of Dominion countries like India, could the hon. Gentleman say what consultations took place with the Dominions and whether they agreed to this arrangement being made?

Mr. Maudling: We were not negotiating, of course, on behalf of the independent sterling area countries in the matter of trade, but they furnished us with estimates of the likely course of trade. The actual Agreement is a payments Agreement, not a trade Agreement.

Mr. H. Hynd: Whatever the precedents may have been about consultation, because of the special effect on Lancashire in this case why was not the Cotton Board, at least, consulted?

Mr. Maudling: As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend informed the cotton industry leaders, and particularly Sir Raymond Streat, on a confidential basis of the probable outcome of the negotiations. [Hon. Members: "Informed?"] This, in fact, was information, not consultation. As the hon. Gentleman particularly asked me about the Cotton Board, I think he should know that Sir Raymond Streat was informed of the process of negotiations.

Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very clear statement by Sir Raymond Streat and other cotton trade


leaders that they were not consulted? Is he further aware that, whatever the practice on European liberalisation, it was the invariable practice of the previous Government to consult the cotton industry and other industries concerned in the negotiation of a bilateral agreement, as this is a bilateral Agreement?

Mr. Maudling: I understand that Sir Raymond Streat has given authority for the remarks which I have just made. As to consultation, I think that what I have said is adequate. Her Majesty's Government have many contacts in Lancashire and they are well aware of the view that Lancashire would take on cotton. The import of grey doth is the type of textile import which would do the least harm in Lancashire, and the type which some section of the industry would in fact welcome.

Mr. Fort: Can my hon. Friend say what representations he has had from the Colonial Governments asking the British Government to make such an Agreement so that they can obtain cloth, which they think might be cheaper from Japan than from Lancashire?

Mr. Maudling: In our dealings with Colonial Governments we were concerned to safeguard particularly their exports to Japan—in the case of the Uganda Government cotton is very important. We obtained an estimate of the amount of Japanese goods which they would wish to import when there were no balance of payments difficulties. We have informed them that as balance of payments difficulties do not exist any longer it is up to them to decide their own requirements.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate now that the information which he communicated to the chairman of the, Cotton Board, and which he has now given to the House, has been received by the cotton manufacturing and export interests with consternation? Does he not consider that it would have been much better to have taken them into his confidence at an earlier stage and not simply faced them with anaccomplished fact by way of confidential information?

Mr. Maudling: I see no reason why this announcement should be received with consternation. I was in Manchester

recently and had the opportunity of talking with leading members of the industry who gave their views. I am sure that all responsible people recognise that where there are no balance of payment difficulties it is impossible for this country to say to the Colonies, "You must restrict the import of Japanese goods in favour of Lancashire." I am sure that Lancashire people appreciate that.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can my hon. Friend give an estimate of the amount by which Japanese exports to the Colonial Empire are expected to increase in 12 months?

Mr. Maudling: I could not give it off hand, but of the figure the larger element, possibly the major element, is entrepôt trade. Hong Kong, for example, will be buying goods from Japan in order to sell them to other territories.

Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The conclusion of a trade and finance Agreement with the Government of Japan which, for the first time since the war, permits the entry of a wide range of Japanese consumer goods into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The conclusion of a trade and finance Agreement with the Government of Japan which, for the first time since the war, permits the entry of a wide range of Japanese consumer goods into the United Kingdom.
I understand that this Agreement has been made and, therefore, I find it impossible to bring this Motion within the Standing Order on the ground of urgency. The Agreement has been signed and there is nothing that the House can do about it now, except possibly to dismiss the Government who have made it—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—if that be the will of the House. That is a process which can take place just as well on some future day as it can today, and I do not feel that in those circumstances I should be justified in interrupting the


Orders of the Day or finding this Motion within Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Silverman: On that point, Mr Speaker, while it may be true that signatures have been put to the Agreement, is it not equally true that the Agreement would require ratification before being implemented and therefore it is urgent that the opinion of the House should be taken on it now?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is the case. If hon. Members are interested in this important subject, arrangements should be made in the usual way for a proper debate upon it, but it is not within Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Bowles: May I put a point to you, Mr. Speaker? [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite can have their private row in the 1922 Committee later this week. The point which I should like to submit is that the Agreement was only signed on 29th January and it is now 1st February and it is quite possible that contracts have not been entered into. Would that not make it a matter of urgency?

Mr. Speaker: That is all very hypothetical. I cannot accept that.

Mr. Attlee: In view of the statement made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, will the Leader of the House give time for a debate on this very important matter of Japanese trade?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I must ask that that should be discussed through the usual channels.

EAST COAST SEA DEFENCES

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

MR. BRAINE: To ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied with the progress made in repairing and strengthening the sea defences breached or weakened in the East Coast flood disaster a year ago; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Braine: As today is the first anniversary of the East Coast flood disaster, Mr. Speaker, would you consider asking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, whom I see in his place, to answer Question No. 59 in view of the special circumstances?

Mr. Speaker: I have frequently ruled on that matter. I can only give such permission if it is asked before the commencement of business. I have received no such notice in this case.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

BRITISH ARMY (NEW RIFLE)

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the decision of Her Majesty's Government to adopt the Belgian F.N. rifle for use by the British Army in place of the new British E.M.2 rifle.
There can be few more important decisions to an army than the decision to change its rifle, and the last time that the British Army changed the standard pattern of the rifle was some 50 years ago. The rifle is still the fundamental infantry weapon. It is the personal and individual weapon with which, in the last resort, a soldier or even an airman on the ground or a sailor, must seek to defend himself. Even in this atomic age, though some of the weapons which might be used in a future war are gruesome and terrible in the amount of slaughter and destruction which they can cause, it will still be the infantry soldier who is left to hold a piece of ground with his own body or be driven off who will be the final decider of who is to win any war.
So it is absolutely vital not only that this personal weapon with which the soldier is to be equipped should be not merely good but the best possible weapon and that he should know that it is the best possible weapon that could have been obtained for him. It is essential not only for his morale but because, if another war came and we were faced by an almost overwhelming number of the enemy, it is vital that the soldier should have a weapon which can efficiently outweigh the numerical disadvantages from which he suffers. Quite apart from that, we have seen during this period of cold war not a few instances in which the infantryman has had to be used in his old-fashioned rôle.
So when a change is made, the Government have laid upon them a trust to provide not only a good new rifle for the soldier but the best possible rifle that can be obtained for him. It is our view that the Prime Minister has broken that trust, and there could be no more important trust than that laid upon him in this particular capacity. He has broken it because, first, he does not fully understand the issues involved. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh now, but I doubt whether they will laugh when

I have finished what I intend to say on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman has done it also partly because he has endeavoured to satisfy the Americans to an extent which involves a complete abandonment of legitimate and reasonable British interests. Further than that, having taken a decision which he knows to be wrong—as I shall show in a moment—he has been prepared, almost dishonestly, to try to rationalise the decision he has taken and which he knows to be a wrong one.
This decision to abandon the British E.M.2 rifle has been taken in the name of standardisation. What does standardisation mean? In 1945 the War Office began work on the designing of a new rifle and round to replace the rifle we had had since the Boer War. In 1947 we heard that the Americans were engaged in the similar work of trying to produce a new weapon and new round to replace their rifle, which was of much more modern design than ours but which they felt they wanted to replace. We decided that we would try to co-ordinate our plans with theirs, and at various conferences it was decided that a few years after 1947 there should be trials of what had been produced.
At that time the British were working on the ·280 round. The first trials of the first developed rifles took place in 1950. Those trials were inconclusive, except to prove that the rifles which the Americans put in were no good. They were withdrawn and have never been put in again since. At that stage of development, in 1950, there was nothing much to choose between the Belgian rifle and the British rifle. In fact, it could have been said, if we had then immediately proceeded to the manufacture of a new weapon, that the Belgian rifle might have slight advantages because research and work on the Belgian rifle had gone on much longer than on the British rifle.
In April, 1951, further trials were held between the Belgian rifle and the British E.M.2 rifle. By that time there had been so much improvement and development of the British E.M.2 rifle that it was indisputably better than the Belgian one in all the military requirements put on a new rifle by the War Office. However, the United States were still opposed to having a British rifle. I shall come to that matter later on. This achievement


of British designers and inventors, in producing in less than four years a completely perfect semi-automatic rifle, can hardly be over-estimated. It was then announced by the War Office that the British would go ahead with the production and use of the E.M.2 rifle, and that they would adopt it as the standard rifle for the British Army.
However, a little later in the year—partly as a result of intervention by the Canadians, I understand—we were persuaded not to rush ahead with the production of a new ·280 rifle, which the Americans had decided they did not want touse, but to wait a little longer to see whether it was possible to get standardisation at least of the round. The Americans were insisting on a heavier round, the ·300 round. I do not want to go into these arguments about the round, because they are all over and done with, but, in the interests of standardisation and as a result of further talks, we met the Americans by modifying the ·280 rifle to fire a ·300 round. That is a very important central, fact and a lot of misunderstanding has taken place about it. The original British rifle was modified to fire the ·300 round, and that is what it fires today. That is the standard round accepted for future use by all the N.A.T.O. countries.
We had met the Americans on the main point of standardisation at which we had been aiming. The Prime Minister does not seem to understand this point. He seems to confuse the issue of the standardisation of the rifle and the issue of the standardisation of the ammunition. If the Americans are using ·300 ammunition, we are using ·300 ammunition and the Belgians and everyone else in N.A.T.O. are using ·300 ammunition, and if we then run short of rifles at any time we can take from elsewhere rifles of any other pattern, provided that they fire ·300 ammunition. So the basic aim of standardisation is already achieved.
I believe that the Prime Minister is afraid that there could come a time similar to that when he was Prime Minister during the war, when there was a tremendous shortage of rifles in this country. He is very anxious to standardise so that such a shortage could be remedied by immediate imports from America. But he is quite wrong because, provided they are using the same

ammunition, we can certainly use any rifle which uses that ammunition and we can import from America if we need to do so. The whole of that standardisation issue is at an end, although the Prime Minister seems to think that the problem has not yet been solved.
Having solved the main issue of standardisation, we come to the question of the rifle. Of course it would be desirable for all to have the same rifle, but that is not essential; it does not very much matter. What we can now decide to do is to have not merely a good new rifle but the best new rifle and take no risk nor chance about it because 90 per cent. of the standardisation problem is solved. The fact is that the new E.M.2 rifle is technically better than the Belgian F.N. rifle, both firing the same rounds. In the first place, the British rifle is six inches shorter than the Belgian rifle. This was an important requirement laid down by the War Office as a result of experience in the last war and in looking to the future—to have the rifle as short as possible. Now that has been sacrificed because the Belgian rifle is six inches longer than the British rifle. The British rifle is ¾ lb. lighter than the Belgian rifle, which is the weight of the Lee Enfield, so we gain nothing by that. Yet that was the second major point laid down by the War Office, that not only should the rifle be shorter, but it should be lighter.
The next point which the War Office laid down was that the rifle should be able to fire the highest possible rate of aimed single shots—not automatic fire, but aimed single shots. The Belgian rifle will fire only half as many aimed single shots as the British E.M.2. The Belgian rifle, I understand from tests, only fires 40 to 60 rounds per minute aimed single shots, while the British rifle fires 80 to 100 per minute.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): If I may correct the hon. Member, he is wrong there. Both rifles on all tests and as standardised fire 60 aimed single shots.

Mr. Wyatt: That is not what we were told as late as this morning. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman must have been given the same information as we were given this morning.

Mr. Head: The hon. Member makes these insinuations, but I can give him the


actual description of the trials; sixty rounds is the same for both rifles. I think the hon. Member ought to accept that, as I can show him.

Mr. Wyatt: Unless there has been some remarkable change since the earlier test between the E.M.2 and the F.N., I think the Secretary of State is mistaken. This morning we were talking to people whom he sent us to see who are users of the rifle and who admitted that the Belgian rifle had a lower rate of single shot firing. They certainly did.

Mr. Head: As this has been stated, although it is not entirely relevant to this discussion, we ought toget it clear. I cannot answer for what was said to the hon. Member or whether he heard it correctly. The fact remains that although a very careful classifying of the qualities of a rifle is important, 50 or 60 aimed single shots per minute can be fired by a trained soldier with both.

Mr. Wyatt: It depends to some extent upon who is firing the rifle at the time. It may be that there has been a lot of rather partial testing, a partial presentation of this case by those concerned to please the Prime Minister in the matter. I do not believe that to be an accurate test. I believe that the British rifle does fire—I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply believes it, too—a higher rate of single round shots than the Belgian.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low) indicated dissent.

Mr. Wyatt: In any case, even if that point is wrong, there are still quite enough left to prove that the British rifle is the better one.
The next point is that the British rifle does not need a flash hider—something to be put on the barrel in order to hide its flash in daylight. The flash is only the same sort as that of the present British ·303. But the Belgian rifle must either have a contraption fitted on the end of it which makes it another four inches longer, making it 10 inches longer than the British rifle, which was a condition previously unacceptable to the War Office, or it must be fired with a fixed bayonet, and everybody knows that accuracy is lost in firing—the accuracy

of the rifle remains the same but allowance has to be made for the bayonet being fixed.
Again, we were told this morning at the demonstration, which was so kindly arranged for us by the Government in a last-minute attempt to prove that the Belgian rifle was better than ours, although the British rifle was not demonstrated under the same conditions at all as the Belgian, that the British rifle has passed trials in the Arctic and under Arctic conditions; the Belgianrifle has not. I understand that it is undergoing such trials now. But we have accepted a rifle which has not even finished its trials. That is not the only trial it has not finished. It has not even got an Arctic trigger. The British one has had an Arctic trigger for a long time.
Finally, I understand that tests show that, on the whole, the British rifle is more reliable than the Belgian rifle. Would the Secretary of State agree with that?

Mr. Head: Mr. Head indicated dissent.

Mr. Wyatt: The right hon. Gentleman does not agree. But this is still the same rifle that won the competitive trials with the Belgian rifle in 1951. It is still the same rifle that the Prime Minister spoke about on 19th November, 1952, when he said:
We still think that the ·280 rifle is the best, and we have not in any way given up research and development on it.
On the same day he said:
I have always thought that the ·280 might be useful for special tasks, such as paratroops and so forth, and we have certainly not abandoned our belief that it is the best weapon yet achieved."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1863–4.]
It is still the same weapon. No fundamental change in design has taken place. The only thing that has been done has been to make it fire the ·300 round.
The Secretary of State for War on 10th March, 1952, said:
Nobody on either side of the House would argue, for one moment, that ·280 rifle was not the best rifle in Europe or the world today."—[Official Report, 10th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1203.]
Since then he has become so lacking in patriotism in this matter, with the Prime Minister, that he is arguing that it is not the best. He is continually interrupting me to prove that the Belgian rifle is the


best. Yet nothing has changed since the day when he said it was the best in the world.

Mr. Head: That was when the E.M.2 was using the ·280 round and there was no question of standardisation.

Mr. Wyatt: That shows how little the Secretary of State knows about the matter. All that has happened is that the E.M.2, while retaining all essential characteristics, has been modified to fire the ·300 round. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply knows that that is so.
The most scandalous part of this new decision, which has been taken without any real technical advice, is that no comparative trials whatever on which technical and military judgment could have been reversed have taken place since the first comparative trials in 1951. I challenge either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for War to say when the official full-length comparative trials took place between the new Belgian rifle firing the ·300 round and the new British rifle firing the ·300 round, who was there and where the trials were. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] Would the Prime Minister care to answer?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members cannot demand an answer just now. No doubt there will be speeches in reply.

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. You have just admonished this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, for its noise. May I point out that we have had great difficulty on this side of the House in listening to my hon. Friend because of the noise of the conversation of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War, or, I might say, the noise of the Secretary of State for War while he has been trying to make my hon. Friend's arguments clear to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I was really asking the House not to persist in demands for an answer when an hon. Member is speaking. He can have an answer later in the form of orderly speeches.

Mr. Wyatt: We are entitled to ask the Prime Minister our the Secretary of State for War, who has shown very little interest in the British E.M.2—

Mr. Hugh Dalton: On a point of order. Would it not be possible for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War to cease their continuous conversation and pay more attention to the arguments being deployed by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: As it is stated in the Library, conversations, so long as they are not too noisy or prolonged, are in order.

Mr. Wyatt: The simple point is that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War are both on record as saying that the British E.M.2 rifle is the best in the world, that there is nothing else to touch it. Yet they have both connived at reversing a decision to use it for the British Army and they cannot say that there has been any comparative trial between the new British E.M.2 rifle and the new Belgian F.N. rifle to justify that decision. I am asking them whether they can give an answer instead of sitting gossiping like a pair of old women because they cannot give an answer.
There is another point. At one time, I understand, the Prime Minister actually gave orders that there should be some pilot production of the British E.M.2 rifle. What happened to it? Nothing has ever happened. There are only about 20 of these rifles in existence because the Government procrastinated year after year and have not even undertaken any basic pilot production.
Why has there been this astonishing decision to take a good but admittedly not so good a weapon into the British Army—a Belgian weapon, instead of a British one? I should have no objection if the Belgian rifle could be proved to be better than the British one. If it were, all the arguments would fall to the ground, because we are not against standardisation, we are not taking a narrow and parochial view. We are saying, "We will have standardisation, but let us have it on the best weapon and give British inventors a fair chance."
Why has this decision been taken when the Belgian rifle has still to go through all sorts of further trials to prove that it will be a satisfactory weapon? The reason is partly that the Prime Minister does not understand the point about standardisation of ammunition


and rifle, because if he does he has been laying a very curious emphasis on the importance of standardising the rifle. The truth is that he does not understand the fact that once the ammunition is standardised, we do not have to bother so much about the rifle.
He has shown a weakness quite unworthy of him towards the United States and their determination not to have a British weapon. From the start there has been among those responsible in America little attempt to conceal a marked anti-British prejudice on the question of this rifle. We have tried to meet them in every way, but every time another argument crops up. Their first argument was about the ·280 round, and we met them over that. What was left? They then said the E.M.2 rifle does not look orthodox in appearance, and I suppose the Prime Minister began to think that the Americans—because the Belgian rifle does look more orthodox—wouldbe interested in having that.
The Prime Minister gambled on that, and I think he has made a mistake, because the Americans have never yet taken a foreign-made weapon into their army. We have taken foreign weapons, including the Vickers, the Lewis and the Bren guns. We do not object on the grounds of local or national pride to taking in a foreign-made weapon. The "New York Herald Tribune, "a very responsible American paper, made it quite clear on 21st January that the United States do not propose to take a foreign-made weapon as their new rifle. There is no evidence that they have agreed within the next five years, or even the next 10 years, to adopt the Belgian F.N. rifle.
They have not even agreed to the use of the new ammunition. They have only said that in the future, if they are having a new rifle, they will standardise on the ·300 ammunition; but they have not said when they will do so. We are the only people who are launching out and having the ·300 ammunition. The Americans have not agreed to it. Has the Prime Minister any information about the length of time within which the Americans have agreed to put into use either the Belgian F.N. weapon or the new ·300 ammunition? The Americans are in no great hurry. They have a semi-automatic rifle which works, though not as well as they would like; but they are in no

great hurry, and are experimenting all the time with such weapons as the T.44 and other new weapons of their own.
The most pathetic fact of all is that, by adopting the new Belgian F.N. rifle, we have not even achieved standardisation with the Belgians, because within the last two years the Belgian Army has been re-equipped with the new F.N. rifle which does not fire ·300 but ·30/06 rounds as used by the Americans in their present rifle. Unless they withdraw all the new rifles issued in the last two years and reissue with the new type rifle—which is unlikely because such a procedure would be expensive—we have not even achieved standardisation with the Belgians. So we are left in the position that we have not a standardised rifle with anyone, not with the Americans, the Belgians, the Canadians—nobody. We have launched out alone and sacrificed a much better rifle to take this one, in the forlorn and hopeless hope that the Americans may perhaps in the future—goodness knows when—adopt this new rifle. The E.M.2 is the same British rifle which the right hon. Gentleman once described in such glowing terms and which he has now abandoned.
I come to the last part of the charge against the Prime Minister. He has set about rationalising his decision in a way which is almost dishonest. What does he say about the new British rifle? He agrees now that it is unorthodox in appearance. He does not like the look of it. It is not like the rifle he used to know in the Boer War. One could hardly find a more classic expression of the Tory outlook than this clinging to a rifle because its shape is familiar, and not adopting a new type of weapon because theright hon. Gentleman does not like the look of it. What was he saying about it last Tuesday? He said it is better to carry on the march. It is not. It is no easier to carry on the march than the E.M.2. It has to have an additional carrying handle which the British rifle does not. The right hon. Gentleman may remember the little carrying handle at the side of the Belgian weapon.
The Prime Minister said it was nicer to use on manual exercises. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that future wars will be won by P.T. squads demonstrating manual exercises with the rifle, that is


the most childish argument we have heard advanced against the British rifle. On 19th January he said:
…the Belgian rifle is considered by our military and expert authorities to be more suitable. It has proved itself to be equal in performance to the latest British pattern, and the fact that it is simpler in design makes it quicker and easier to make and maintain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1954; Vol. 522, c. 834.]
I say that is not true. There have been no comparative tests by which that could have been ascertained, and the E.M.2 is still the same weapon which the right hon. Gentleman once thought the best. I do not believe there is much in the point about it being quicker and easier to design, because owing to the dilatoriness of the Prime Minister and the inefficiency of his Government, none of these weapons has been made on a large scale. There has been no tooling up for the purpose, and until that stage is arrived at it is impossible to tell the differences in cost and ease of production.
I do not believe there is much in the question of cost one way or the other. I ask the Prime Minister to look into his heart for a moment. Is it not true that he told the Army he wanted to have the Belgian rifle as the standardised rifle, and got the view from the Army that the Belgian rifle was the most suitable by first letting them know that it was the one he wanted to have?
His final point against the British rifle is the most ludicrous one of all. He says that the Belgian rifle has a butt which, he added, is very useful if you run out of ammunition. Does he really think we are going to have periods of hand-to-hand fighting in the next war? The Prime Minister, by looking up the records, will find that the number of times a butt was used during hand-to-hand, fighting in the last war were very few.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): Has it not been used in Korea?

Mr. Wyatt: I do not know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Prime Minister can tell us. In any case would it not be more useful to have a bayonet on the end of the rifle and use that?
If the Prime Minister had ever bothered to examine the British rifle properly, which is something he has not troubled to do, and if he had shown a

little interest in this product of our most brilliant British inventors, he would have seen that there is a metal plate on the butt. I should be very surprised if he preferred to be hit over the head with an E.M.2 rather than with a Belgian F.N.
There is one further technical point about the Belgian weapon. There is a structural weakness in the butt of the F.N. and if you hit too many people over the head with the butt it will crack. In order to strengthen the butt it would be necessary to make the rifle still heavier, which would be a further disadvantage.
The Prime Minister is prejudiced and does not desire to have a change. He says that the E.M.2 does not look like a rifle. Nelson did not want naval guns to be altered to include rifling in the barrels. He argued that if that were done, ships would no longer come together at close quarters, there would be no further grappling and the boarding of one ship by the crew of another. The Belgian rifle is the last development of the old style of rifle and the British rifle represents a move into the future. The Prime Minister wants to meet the new jet age with the butt end of a rifle.
This deliberate scorning of British inventors and designers has struck a tremendous blow at the morale of British inventors. The Government as a whole are guilty in this matter, because no interest has been taken by anyone in this weapon since it was finished, or in the efforts of the inventors who have done a fine job. If we are to survive, not only must we have the most efficient rifle, but we must encourage our inventors to be the most efficient. We shall not achieve that if our inventors perform every task put upon them and are then ignored on the basis of prejudice and without adequate investigation of their efforts. I understand that, over the last year or so, some designers have been leaving Government service because they are tired of being frustrated by this kind of attitude.
Cannot the Prime Minister, even now, reverse this decision? All the troop trials of the Belgian rifle are not yet over. We have taken so long over this matter—there have been two years of procrastination—that surely we may take a little longer? Why does he not give the British rifle invented by Englishmen a fair chance


of a trial against the Belgian rifle which he has accepted without a comparative trial? Why do not we wait a bit longer and have adequate trials? The Americans are not going to accept the Belgian rifle. If we wait a bit longer we shall be losing nothing. The Prime Minister has already told us that the danger of war has receded and there is a lightening of tension. We do not need the rifles quite so urgently as at one time we might have thought.
Probably we shall keep the same rifle for another 50 years. Is not it worth waiting a little longer to make sure that we have got the best rather than, on rather shady political grounds, sacrificing the best rifle for something which is not so good? I ask the Prime Minister even now to look into the whole matter again, to reverse the decision, and to go back to his earlier and better thoughts.

Mr. Frank Bowles: I beg to second the Motion.

4.21 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): This is an interesting controversy and it is one which, I think, is very properly made a subject of debate. Certainly the dispute is not one about which there should be ideological cleavages, party feeling, bad temper, or even insulting language.
We have a common interest in taking the right decision. No party interest is involved in any way, and I really do not think that the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) should assume that he is in the presence of a villainous plot when all that has happened is that the best focusing of the latest and best expert advice we can obtain has governed the decisions which have been taken. The hon. Gentleman was fairly moderate this afternoon in what he said, but a week ago in "Reynolds News" he used this sort of language:
Sir Winston Churchill announced the biggest betrayal of British designers and inventors in political history. It was also the shameful abandonment of the British soldier and of British interests.
The nearest he got to that today was to say that I was lacking in patriotism and guilty of dilatoriness.
I have only a fairly simple tale to tell this afternoon, but before I come to the

tale I should like to make a few general observations arising out of what the hon. Gentleman said about the rapidity of fire. He said the new British rifle fired 80 shots as against 40 by the Belgian. As a matter of fact, these two rifles, if used on automatic gear, can fire at the rate of over 600 rounds a minute. Both can fire by semi-automatic gear, that is to say, self-loading but trigger-pulling for every shot, 50 or 60 rounds a minute. That is what I am advised is the case.
I doubt very much whether there is any real military advantage in these extraordinary rates. It seems to me incredible that a human being can give individual thought and aim to 50 or 60 decisions a minute. Even if a very highly trained expert soldier could achieve such a result in peace conditions, I am sure that the ordinary rank and file, especially in these short service days, would simply be wasting their ammunition if they tried to pull the trigger 60 times a minute. In the stress and excitement of battle, the soldier would be far more likely to fire away his limited amount of ammunition, the supply of which is always a main interest especially on the move in the front line.
It is remarkable and indeed odd that the more efficient fire-arms have become, the fewer people are killed by them. The explanation of this apparent paradox is simply that human beings are much more ingenious in getting out of the way of missiles which are fired at them than they are at improving the direction and guidance of these individual missiles. In fact, the semi-automatic and automatic rifles have already, in a certain sense, gained their triumph by largely putting an end to the very mass attacks they were originally devised to destroy.
But those are only general observations upon the point that it is, I think, an error to try to think only in purely technical terms, and that the practical usage and experience and qualities of the human being must be brought in to all these questions of modern weapons with their ever-increasing improvements. One of the recurrent military problems of the last 100 years had been the ever more rapid progress of scientific invention in all countries. In that condition the difficulty has been to choose the moment when to change from research and experiment in major weapons to what the French call production en série which


for the benefit of those who have studied ancient rather than modern languages, I will venture to translate as "mass production."
The period of transition, perhaps 10 years, in the rifle must be one of awkwardness and anxiety, but to have two different rifles in the Army at the same time is a serious disadvantage. To hold on to an obsolescent type too long may lead to disaster if war comes. On the other hand, to plunge into a new type too soon is to cut oneself off from the further improvements of invention which have now become perpetual.
I am not a technical expert, nor am I attempting to speak as one. I certainly should not have taken part in this discussion but for the fact that I was involved in it during the period when we sat on the other side of the House. I thought it was a mistake of the late Administration to take a plunge into the ·280 rifle in April, 1951. That was not because it was not a very good one and a great advance on our well-proven but obsolete ·303, but because we might find ourselves all alone with this new rifle for what at that time was mentioned to me as a 10-year transitional period at the very time when our supreme aim was the building up of a grand alliance and a common front between the nations of the free world.
Even if the ·280 was the best rifle in the world, which we do not think it now is, I would rather that we were not the only country with it in a longer period of transition. When the various patterns of rifles are all so narrowly matched, it is wiser to keep company with the largest possible number of allies, but it would be a foolish boast to say that we had the best rifle in the world when we had in fact complicated and confused the whole standardisation of the allied arms on the common front, of which common front we form only about a quarter on the Rhine and about one-tenth on the whole N.A.T.O. front.
To simplify and unify ammunition supply on a common front must be held to rank very high in military policy. It has been said that the general wins who makes the fewest mistakes, and it is very tiresome when ammunition is brought with difficulty and suffering to troops in mortal peril and it turns out to be the wrong kind. Therefore, when competing
types are neck and neck, it may well be that standardisation claims priority.

Mr. Wyatt: Mr. Wyatt rose—

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentle man had better wait. He will get a chance later. Let me point out that when the decision to go into production with the E.M.2 in isolation was declared by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) on 25th April, 1951, at that time the problem of finding a common type of ammunition had not been solved and the British pattern rifle had not been devised, as it now has been, to take the ·300 round. Therefore, I asserted—this is the only reason I am speaking in this debate—that such policy was a great mistake, but I do not impute any evil motives to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am glad to feel with Pope that:
To err is human; to forgive, divine.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me instantaneously if I venture to interject and to remind him that, although provisionally a decision was taken on the date he mentioned, in April, 1951, we engaged in discussions at Washington with some of the other N.A.T.O. countries much later in the year and were prepared to consider any suggestions made by the other countries, and it was only because of the American intransigeance that we were unable to reach some agreement.

The Prime Minister: As I say, the fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman very authoritatively adhered to the ·280 round at the time when no arrangements for production of a common round had been made.
The House might be interested to know how it came about that the ·300 round was selected. In August, 1951, following an appeal by Canada, which was worried that Britain was what was called "going out on a limb" with the ·280 round, a Defence Ministers' Conference took place in Washington between Great Britain, the United States, Canada and France. At this conference the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Minister of Defence, offered to show the ammunition to N.A.T.O. on trial. This offer was accepted, and the trials of our ·280 round with American ·300 round took place in September, 1951. A vote was taken after the trials, at which


the United States and France came down solidly for the ·300 round, and Canada, while appreciating the efficiency of the ·280 round, considered that the ·300 round met all requirements.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but we had better get the facts right. I was present at that Conference and took part in the negotiations. The position of the United States was as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, the position of France was that she had no opinion at all, and the position of Canada was as stated by the then, and, I think, present, Minister of Defence, Mr. Brooke Claxton, that he was quite unconcerned about the size of the round or the type of rifle as long as Canada had the opportunity of producing whatever rifle or whatever round was decided upon.

The Prime Minister: All I say is that a vote was taken after the trials, and notwithstanding the vote, which I have described, the British representatives decided to adopt the ·280 round and go ahead alone.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there was a vote of Ministers at that Conference?

The Prime Minister: No, Six. Notwithstanding the fact that that was the opinion of the different countries at the Conference, it was decided to go on with the ·280 round and to go ahead alone. This was a grave decision, and such was the position which we found when we came into office.
There is another aspect affecting the production of the rifle itself. Uniformity of type is not only important on the battlefield but the whole process of manufacture can be simplified and expedited if it is undertaken on a great scale by many allied countries at the same time. Above all, it was, and is, very important to us if possible to keep in step with the United States. Canada certainly never would have adopted a different round from that of the United States, but if both Canada and the United States were making the same rifle and round as Great Britain, that would be of enormous advantage. We should be in a really gigantic pool, meaning not only speed and ease of manufacture but vast reserves capable
of transference between allies if the emergency of war rendered it necessary. It was these general reasons and not any claim to expert knowledge of the types involved that led me when in Opposition to intervene.
In October, 1951, when we became responsible, I, as the then Minister of Defence, reversed the right hon. Gentleman's decision of 25th April of that year to proceed with the ·280 round and rifle in isolation. I take full responsibiity today for that.
In January, 1952, I visited Washington and conferred with President Truman on the whole subject. I should have been perfectly ready to go forward with the ·280 E.M.2 rifle if he would have agreed to adopt it for the American Army. But the overpowering need was to find a common round between us both, or, better still, a common round for N.A.T.O. It was not until September, 1953, that the common round was achieved.
Now I come back to the rifle and the reasons why the Belgian was adopted instead of the British. The British and Belgian rifles, both then of ·280 calibre, were first tested in the United States in 1950. British and Canadian representatives were present. The conclusion then reached was that the Belgian rifle showed most promise for development. They were tested again in America in 1952, when the Belgian rifle was considered preferable to the British.
Meanwhile, trials were also taking place in Great Britain. In 1951, the Belgian and British rifles were compared—I am giving the information which is given to me by the War Office, and which has been most carefully sifted and examined—and the conclusion reached by the British Trials Board was that the Belgian rifle F.N. (Fabrique Nationale) was technically and most efficient on the score of dependability, functioning and accuracy. That was the view. I am not going into the specially technical aspects as to where they were almost neck and neck, but that was the view taken by the British Trials Board in 1951, and the right hon. Gentleman did say in one of his interventions this afternoon that he had begun to modify his views because of the later information which had reached him.

Mr. Shinwell: I was at Washington and took part in the discussions about the rifle. We were not adamant about the round at Washington. We listened to the discussion, took part in it ourselves and came away from Washington with an open mind about the possibility of making modifications in the round, just the same as other people. This is the point I want to take up with the right hon. Gentleman, because it seems to me to be the most important point in these discussions: Are we to understand, from what the right hon. Gentleman had just said, that the British Trials Board, only a few months after they had decided that both the round and the rifle were the best yet produced, actually changed their minds to decide in favour of the Belgian rifle?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Various modifications were thereafter incorporated in the Belgian rifle, and, in 1953, it was subjected to further tests, when it was judged to meet our requirements.

Mr. Wyatt: The Prime Minister is deliberately falsifying—

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. I demand an apology for that extremely discourteous remark. To say that a Minister dealing with a highly technical and complicated question and endeavouring to give the House information is deliberately falsifying his statements is, I think, unparliamentary in its character.

Mr. Wyatt: If I have said anything that I should not have said, I naturally withdraw it and apologise, but I am afraid that in this matter the Prime Minister is endeavouring to put a very partial view on certain trials that have taken place and is not giving the whole truth about them. If I used one brief unparliamentary word to describe that, I am sorry and I withdraw it. May I now come back to the point?

The Prime Minister: I have given way once.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order.

Mr. Wyatt: Mr. Wyatt rose—

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether I am in possession of the House or not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I understood that the Prime Minister complained of something that was said, and that he gave the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) the opportunity to withdraw, which he has done. The Prime Minister has the Floor of the House, and unless he gives way the hon. Gentleman cannot rise.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. The Prime Minister gave way to me, and I began to say something to him, and he took violent objection. I was never able to say what I wanted to say. The point is this. The Prime Minister said that certain trials had taken place. What we are trying to find out is when, where and under whose auspices. The Prime Ministerreferred to two trials in America under American auspices, and we know that they were prejudiced against the British rifle, and, not unnaturally, gave a report unfavourable to the British rifle.
It is in the recollection of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and myself that other trials took place in 1951 in Britain which conclusively showed that the British rifle was the best. I am now trying to find out from thePrime Minister what was this other mysterious trial and where it took place, because nobody on this side of the House—and we were then the Government—ever heard of it. When and where did this trial take place?

Mr. Head: This is a purely factual matter of some detail, and it is one about which I should be responsible for knowing something. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, there were two trials. First, the British technical board in April, 1951, made a trial after which their unanimous conclusion was that the F.N. rifle was efficient in all conditions in the point of view of dependability, functioning and accuracy. That was in 1951. In the same year a user trial took place, after which the verdict was three all. Those were the only two trials that took place with the two rifles in 1951.

Mr. Shinwell: The more I listen to this debate, the more I am staggered at what the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have said. Either they have been badly briefed, or there is something very wrong with this business. I am wondering what


is behind it. May I put this to the Prime Minister? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when I went to Washington in 1951—not in April, but much later in the year; I think it was September or October, but it was towards the end of the year—to conduct negotiations with the United States, French and Canadian representatives on the question of the rifle and the round, I was accompanied by men who were regarded as the best military experts in the country on small arms, and by no less a person than Lieut.-General Whiteley, whose reputation, I think, is very high. If at that time I was advised by the War Office that this was the best rifle and the best round, and this was the advice of these military technical experts, supported by the Ministry of Supply experts—and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply to deny that; let him look up the records—if that was the way I was briefed, surely what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about the military experts changing their minds indicates that there is something very far wrong?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to wind up for the Opposition. I think he would be well advised to keep that lengthy speech for incorporation in his reply.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was briefed by his experts and by the War Office. I, too, on these technical matters, have been most carefully briefed by them, and I have most carefully checked up, and I am not going to say what I do not believe to be true. I really do not think we should do well in a debate of this kind to start calling each other liars, or as near as we can get to it in Parliamentary language, and I shall certainly not myself be drawn into those depths this afternoon.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: We have just been given some information about what occurred in 1951, but the date or the month was not given. I should like to know what time of the year it was.

Mr. Head: I did give the months; it was in April and May, 1951.

The Prime Minister: The conclusion reached in 1951 by the British Trials Board was that the Belgian F.N. was

technically the most efficient on the score of dependability, functioning and accuracy. Various modifications were thereafter incorporated in the Belgian rifle, and, in 1953, it was subjected to further tests, and was then judged, in 1953, to meet our requirements.
The greatest objection to the isolated production of the ·280 or E.M.2 at that time had been removed. The E.M.2 was now a ·300, and we had achieved a common round among the N.A.T.O. Powers. Those were great events, but, in the interval, the Belgian F.N. rifle, which had on several occasions over a long period of years been preferred by certain international expert boards had, in this interval, while we were reaching a common round, been still further improved. It was generally considered more suitable, and as far more likely to be widely adopted than any other competing weapon.
In these circumstances, on 30th October of last year, 1953, the Army Council, taking a different view from its predecessor two years before—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—but not under pressure—taking a different view why, do hon. Members suppose? Because things had happened. [Hon. Members: "Yes."]—decided to recommend the adoption of the Belgian Fabrique National, the Belgian, rifle. On 4th November, 1953, the Secretary of State for War formally requested authority to proceed with its manufacture, and I should add, with the large-scale troop trial which is necessary. This was approved and supported by the Ministry of Defence, over which Earl Alexander then presided. I accepted his advice.

Mr. H. Hynd: Has he resigned?

The Prime Minister: I was Minister of Defence when the present Government began, and after a certain time my Noble Friend, Lord Alexander, became Minister of Defence. It has been quite a frequent event to happen with Governments that offices are changed during their continuance. I accepted this advice, which was given to me through the regular channels without any initiation by me, in my dilatory condition, as the hon. Member opposite said, after studying the papers and arguments submitted. The policy received


final Cabinet approval on 1st December last. I gave the House, in answer to a Question on 19th January, the main reasons for that decision.
Let us look once more at the procedure in this case. The responsibility for deciding the intricate technical questions. I have described rests in the first instance with the War Office, subject to the approval of the Ministry of Defence. The adoption of the Belgian F.N. rifle was formally proposed to me on the authority of both those departments. I was very glad to find that the weapon was in harmony with certain important practical and tactical conceptions to which my own lengthy experience has led me, but which I should not have dreamed of using as a ground for basing such far-reaching decisions of policy, or deciding such highly complicated matters.
Perhaps I may just mention that, because a lot of Members have experience of actual warfare, and they must know perfectly well that everything is not settled exactly by technical and mechanical considerations. For instance, while beingfully up to date in ease and rapidity of fire, a rifle should be carefully safeguarded against too rapid expenditure of ammunition, leading to exhaustion of any supplies which soldiers, or platoons, or even companies, can carry to the front. This is at any rate partially achieved by preventing our new rifle being used as an automatic weapon, unless individual weapons have been specially converted by the field armourers on superior orders, for some particular contingency. The private soldier cannot do it himself. Thus the terrible danger of a convulsive grip pouring away hundreds of precious cartridges is averted. This is quite important, although I have not heard it mentioned.

Mr. John Strachey: That applies to both weapons.

The Prime Minister: I only say that that is one of the reasons why I personally like what I have been able to learn about this weapon. I do not pose as a technical expert, but I pose as a man capable of seeing what a disaster it would have been if we had gone for a round which no other nation in our alliance was sharing.
Secondly, the handiness and simplicity of the firing mechanism and the general

maintenance of the weapon are deemed superior to the E.M.2; that is the advice I have received. Thirdly, although it is about 1 lb. heavier than the E.M.2. a fact which should not be overlooked, the F.N. is approximately the same weight as our present Lee-Enfield rifle, to which I have been so long accustomed. The troops have handled that for a long time. The Belgian F.N. is considered to be a more soldierly weapon on the march.

Mr. George Wigg: Ah!

The Prime Minister: Why should the hon. Gentleman say that? I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman has carried a rifle very far.

Mr. Wigg: I challenge the Prime Minister. I have carried a rifle further and longer than the whole of the Government Benches.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

The Prime Minister: I do not withdraw at all. I see nothing invidious or insulting in speaking of the length of time that people have carried a rifle. Certainly not. I do not feel at all ashamed to say that the F.N. is a more soldierly weapon on the march and is more suited for use in manual exercises—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"]—which hon. Members opposite mock at, but which are very important for discipline and morale. I am assured that it is also easier to teach soldiers how to use this rifle, and that is important in these days of short service. Last, but not least, I repeat what hon. Gentlemen opposite so foolishly mock at, that the F.N. is a better weapon both with the bayonet and with the butt and is capable of giving confidence to a soldier in a mêlée.
Those are not the reasons for taking the decision. The fact that this rifle, chosen and recommended by the War Office and the Ministry of Defence, seemed to me to embody all those and many other important characteristics, gave me confidence in the wisdom of the professional advice I was receiving.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East): Have the Americans accepted it?

The Prime Minister: As hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House are always looking round in every controversy, even in this one about rifles, to try to find


fault with the Americans, I suppose if I were to say that the Americans had accepted it, the hon. Gentleman would regard it as a further argument against the rifle.
I will sum up. I have been interrupted by about seven hon. Gentlemen on this occasion. Really, it is not usual to do so, especially on a matter so complicated and technical. What is trying to be worked up, I can see, is prejudice and hostility and partisanship to cover up what was a gross and scandalous act of folly, namely, embarking on the ·280 rifle before achieving a common round.

Mr. R. T. Paget: If the Prime Minister will not tell us whether the Americans have accepted the Belgian rifle, will he tell us whether anybody has accepted it? Have the French? Have even the Belgians? Are we not alone?

The Prime Minister: I am not in the least alarmed by being shouted at. In fact, I rather like it. The descendant of Paget's "Examen" will, I hope, be very careful and precise in his facts, and be careful in not misrepresenting and misquoting and otherwise defaming other people. He was a great defender of my ancestor.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman—

The Prime Minister: I really did not know that the hon. Gentleman came into this. I saw the former Secretary of State for War, I saw the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt); the Leader of the Opposition has a great responsibility, and there is the late Minister of Defence. I thought that they would all have a claim to have a whack, but I do not see why, in a short debate like this, the hon. Gentleman cannot take his chance of rising when he is called.
I wish to conclude. I would have concluded long ago but for the extraordinary rowdiness and malice with which I have been received. I do not ask for any favours of any kind from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I must say I think they show themselves very unsuited to have calm judgment on a complicated matter of this kind, although I must admit that the hon. Member for Aston did not allow his prejudices or malice against the Belgian rifle to prevent him from making a

most remarkable score with it this morning. I hope he will live up to that principle, being a faithful seeker after truth, whatever use he makes of information he is able to obtain.
The British rifle was a fine piece of work, but it would have been fatal to adopt it in isolation, and in the three years that have passed the rival weapons have been continuously improved. We are very lucky to have escaped the isolated inheritance of the ·280 calibre and to be able to stand on a general front as well as on a sound foundation.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: It is reported that my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) made a good score this morning. He certainly made a very good score this afternoon, because never has the Prime Minister made a worse speech in answer than he has made today. He had to fall back on a couple of hoary old gags, and at the end of his speech it has become quite clear that his objection to the E.M.2 is not that it is not a good rifle, but that it is too good.

It is an extraordinary complaint to come from the Prime Minister, who, after all, held high office in the Government who were in control of the affairs of this country in 1914, that the E.M.2 might have a too rapid rate of fire. As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the British Army of 1914 out-marched, out-fought and out-shot the German Army from Mons back to the Marne, and they achieved all this because the ·303 was a real part of the Infantry's being.
The same argument used today by the right hon. Gentleman was used by the Blimps in the War Office in 1914 against giving an establishment of three or four machine guns to our infantry battalions. It was said that transport was incapable of carrying the rounds with which to sustain the rapid rate of fire of machine gun fire. It was untrue to argue in 1914 that the rate of fire was too rapid; it is more odd that the right hon. Gentleman uses the same argument today.
We do not have to go very far to find a clue to what has gone wrong with the Government's thinking and with their decision. When the Prime Minister answered Questions on 26th January, he said that he had taken the decision under


the advice of the War Office and of the Ministry of Defence. Today he has said the same thing. I say to him that I do not believe that the War Office is competent to take a decision of this kind.
The Army Council does not itself possess sufficient technical knowledge to enable it to make up its mind about the efficiency of what is, after all, a precision product of our engineering industry. If the right hon. Gentleman had told us this afternoon, or when he answered Questions on 26th January, that the Government had taken their decision after consultation with the Ministry of Supply, I might then have thought there was a possibility of their being right.
Of course, it is perfectly true that the Secretary of State for War went to the Army Council with whatever data he wished to put in front of it.

Mr. Head: I do not think the hon. Gentleman should say that kind of thing. It is absolutely untrue. The Army Council had full data at its disposal when it discussed this matter, in the same way as it had before. It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to say that I put "phoney" data in front of it.

Mr. Wigg: I have not said that the right hon. Gentleman put "phoney" data in front of it on this occasion. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said was that before he went to Washington in 1950 he was briefed by the Ministry of Defence—because he was Minister of Defence—by the War Office and by the Ministry of Supply. He had the advantage of the best technical brains in the country. Therefore, he was able to put forward a balanced point of view, which not only took account of the military aspect of the problem, but also of the very important aspect which is only within the knowledge of the Ministry of Supply.
We have heard from the Prime Minister this afternoon that on this occasion the Ministry of Supply was excluded and that the Army Council gave a different decision than it gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) a couple of years ago. My right hon. Friend, who was then Secretary of State for War, was given advice to the effect that the best thing to do was to adopt the E.M.2 because

it was the best rifle, and the military aspect of the problem was also taken into account. Now we are told by the Secretary of State for War and by the Prime Minister that they have taken the decision exclusively on military grounds.

Mr. Head: I think it is as well to get this right. The advice of the Ministry of Supply was given on both occasions, but what was said previously when the hon. Gentleman was speaking is still perfectly correct. The only trials held on those two occasions were first the one of the technical board, which was in favour of the F.N., and the second on which there were three on each side.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman must not apply his favourite trick by trying to wriggle out of the point which I am trying to establish.
When my right hon. Friend took his decision, he acted on the advice of the Army authorities and the Ministry of Supply. On this occasion the decision was taken on the basis of what the Army Council said. The Prime Minister has said that the Army Council came to a decision and, very rightly, he took that advice. Though the substance of the Prime Minister's case has been on the military aspect of the problem to the exclusion of the technical side, he has told us over and over again that he does not understand the technical problems but does understand the military side. That brought in the question of rapidity of fire. He said that I had never handled a rifle on the march, and when I laughed he spoke about troops carrying the rifle.
In my judgment, the clue to how the story runs is to be found in an article in "The Times" a week ago which said that the Belgian rifle had been taken to the Tower of London and that the rifle's drill aspects had been gone into. To whom does the right hon. Gentleman go to for advice on drill aspects? To ask the question is to answer it—the Brigade of Guards, which has great influence and great experience in these matters, and also has its point of view. The rifle regiments, which have a different drill, also need to be consulted.
It is said—and the House and the country ought to know this—that we are to keep the ·303 for drill purposes. Whatever my views may have been about the E.M.2, I am in great danger of ceasing


to use Parliamentary language when I think of the possibility of the National Service man—a point made by the Prime Minister—being given the ·303 for drill purposes and the Belgian rifle to fight with. Was there ever a greater piece of fantastic nonsense than that? I have fired the E.M.2, but I suppose I am the only Member of the House who has fired the ·303 in order to earn my proficiency pay, which is very much more than any right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite has done, I think.

The Prime Minister: I have handled the Snyder and fired the Martini.

Mr. Wigg: Of course, my service started with the ·303, but my point is that I had to be proficient in its use, and one becomes proficient in the use of a weapon not only by firing it but by handling it every day and using it all the time.
The E.M.2, of course, is completely unorthodox and, unlike the ·303, it will be very difficult to evolve a drill for it. It looks more like the weapon associated with Chicago gangsters than a military weapon, but that does not alter the fact that, when my right hon. Friend was making up his mind, the advice given to him was that it was the best weapon in the world. Now we are probably going back, not to the first or second, but the third best, and are going to adopt it because it is six inches greater in height, has a butt, and is more acceptable to the Brigade of Guards' influence on the Army Council.
I think that the real responsibility for this appalling decision does not rest with the Prime Minister at all. I thought he made heavy weather this afternoon, but that he had a very bad brief. The real responsibility lies with the villain of the piece in military affairs, the Secretary of State for War, who can only think, after all, in purely conventional terms. We can see the light-hearted and rather frivolous side of the argument if, as is said, the Brigade of Guards and the Army Council have decided on the retention of the ·303 for drill purposes, but that attitude has had a very serious influence on the military affairs of this country in the past.
It was not until 1927 that we withdrew the lance as a weapon. For eight years after the First World War—after the

massacres of 1914–18—we still retained the lance as a weapon, and for a time during that period when the Prime Minister was Secretary of State for War. Why did we keep the lance? Because it enabled the Cavalry tradition to flourish at flower shows. Of course, we cannot have Trooping the Colour and military tattoos unless we have precise ceremonial drill—so we keep the·303.
The retention of the lance until 1927 may be a joke, but we paid a terrible price for it in men's lives in the last war owing to the lack of mechanisation. Once again, I fear that our young men—called up for only two years—are going to find themselves in an Army for which, under the Minister of Defence there is no strategic reserve but which is committed in all quarters of the world. It is the only Army in the world without a personal automatic weapon; the only Army whose infantrymen carry a completely out-of-date rifle. And now, once again, we are going to keep that out-of-date weapon for drill purposes, which means that these young men are going to be far short of the proficiency they ought to possess in the use of a new, modern but admittedly more complicated rifle.
I hope that one of the by-products of this debate will be that, before it ends, the Secretary of State for War, under the authority of the Prime Minister, will tell us that, even if he persists in his own particular nonsense of keeping the Belgian weapon, at least the ·303 will go out as soon as the Belgian or some other weapon comes into production and that we are not going to have one rifle for ceremonial, and one for other uses.
I do not believe that the Government are going to survive long enough to put the Belgian into production, and I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend when he replies will make it clear that, when a Labour Government returns to office, it will put the national interest first and introduce our own weapon.

Commander J. W. Maitland (Horn-castle): Do I understand the hon. Member to say that were the Labour Government to return to office they would restore this weapon even if the Army Council advised them not to?

Mr. Wigg: I hope that myright hon. Friend would get an Army Council


reasonably objective. [HON, MEMBERS: "Oh!"] At least, it would not be less objective than the Army Council which favoured the E.M.2 in 1951.

5.19 p.m.

Sir Harry Mackeson: I do not intend making a long or controversial speech, nor to speak as an expert on the matter. I am now reduced to the level of shooting for the House of Commons, though I did once shoot for the Army.
I think that Her Majesty's Government have had to make a very difficult decision and that, technically, there is very little difference between the two weapons. I fully accept the point made by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) about weight and height, but I think that the Belgian rifle is slightly more robust. I believe that it is slightly better, also, because it has a stock—not that a stock is particularly important for ceremonial purposes or for knocking people on the head, but because the recoil of the British rifle is rather more likely to cut a man's cheek. That, I know to be the view of experts.
I also feel that the flash elimination of the Belgian rifle is slightly better than that of the British, out, apart from those points, I believe that the difference between the two, as personal weapons, is negligible. I can assure the hon. Member that the point about the rate of fire is not valid. I fired this weapon today. I have had a good deal of experience in firing automatic weapons, and I can guarantee to fire 60 rounds a minute with this rifle and be perfectly happy. That is quite as fast as one wants it if one has to face a mass attack.
I believe that some of the arguments over this rifle—and I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to this point—are due to the fact that there has been a change of muzzle velocity in small arms. I believe that the velocity has gone up from 2,200 to 2,800 f.p.s. That may have caused some confusion in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should like the Minister to confirm that, but I think that I am right.
When the Secretary of State was with Lord Mountbatten; when I was Chief of Staff to General Martell, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing

(Brigadier Prior-Palmer) was commanding an armoured brigade, we were all greatly perturbed at the different types of ammunition and apparatus which had to be carried. At that time, when I was B.G.S. of the Royal Armoured Corps, a troop might have to carry flame-throwing equipment, 17-pounder ammunition, six-pounder H.E., six-pounder A.P., a Besa, ·303 rifle ammunition, revolver ammunition, smoke grenades, hand grenades, two-inch bomb throwers and oerlikon ammunition. We must try to standardise these things. The effort to get a universally accepted ·300 weapon is highly desirable.
If I thought that this rifle was not as good as any which could be got for the British Army, I should not hesitate to say so. Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I shall have a boy in the Army in due course. It is essential that our boys should have the best possible weapons in Kenya or anywhere else. This is an excellent weapon. I think that everybody who saw it today agrees with that I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that we should get off the ·303 as soon as possible. I believe that the ·300 will be a great success. We should make sure that nothing said in this House shakes the faith of the British infantry in their weapons.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: This has been a somewhat curious debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir H. Mackeson) will agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to get the best possible rifle. Hon. Members on this side are also anxious because we believe that we are not getting the best rifle. The Prime Minister has many endearing characteristics. One is that when he either does not understand the issue or knows that he has no case, he assures us that the matter is one in which no party issue can arise. He gave us that assurance today, in his normal form.

But he has another endearing charactertistic. He is very constant in both his likes and dislikes. Once he has made friends, either with a person or an idea, nothing will shift him from that allegiance. He has the same loyalty or persistence in his dislikes, and he took an


initial dislike to the British rifle. I think he took that dislike to it because he did not really understand it, or because he was somewhat prejudiced against anything which was proposed by the Labour Government in April, 1951. At any rate, he took a dislike to it and I believe that has been the foundation of the trouble which we have been in since.
He said that it would be a disaster if we were to find ourselves all alone in developing a new rifle. What has happened since? Nearly three years have passed while we have dithered, avoiding the disaster of developing a new rifle either alone or with anybody else. We have done nothing. Now what has happened? We now find ourselves alone committed to a new rifle. We are in the very position which the Prime Minister feared in 1951 and which led to the rejection of the British rifle.
He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) whether the Americans had accepted the new Belgian rifle. He would not answer. The Americans have not accepted it, and nobody with any knowledge of America thinks there is the slightest chance of their accepting the Belgian or any other European rifle. Congress would never agree to it. The French have not accepted this rifle. Even the Belgians have not accepted it. They have just re-equipped their Army with the F.N. ·306, adapted to present American ammunition, and having done so there is not the least likelihood of their suddenly reverting to this weapon.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: At what date did they adopt that rifle?

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. and gallant Member referring to the new ·300?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am referring to the weapon the hon. and learned Member has just described.

Mr. Paget: I cannot give the precise date, but they finished equipping their troops with it within the last year.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the hon. and learned Member accept the date from me? It was in 1948.

Mr. Paget: That may be when they adopted it, but they had not finished

equipping their troops with it 12 months ago. Having equipped their troops with a new rifle of that semi-automatic description, there is little likelihood of their adopting this one. The Prime Minister has leftus in precisely that position which he described as a disaster. We, alone, are committed to adopting a new rifle.
The unfortunate thing is that in the view of hon. Members on this side of the House this is not the best rifle. It may be said that although we are alone with the rifle we are not alone with the ammunition, but even in this case we are alone. The Americans have said—and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to correct me if I am wrong—that when they settle on their new rifle they will try to adapt it to take a ·300 rimless round. Have they said any more than that? Knowing how this sort of decision is taken in America, to what extent can we be sure that the endeavour which they have promised to make will be realised—particularly if the ·306 is important, from the point of view of mass production, to the armament industry of America? The Belgians still have the ·306. The French are not on the ·300. Where are we going to find this concentration? The very dangers on the basis of which the Prune Minister rejected this rifle have, after a delay of three years, been realised with a rifle that does not appear to be so good.

Commander Maitland: The hon. and learned Gentleman says it is a rifle that does not appear to be so good. Can he give reasons for saying that? The Army Council apparently says it is good. Does he set his own judgment against the Army Council? Does he say the Army Council is bogus? What does he think?

Mr. Paget: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has anticipated the next part of my speech. I shall try to substantiate that. I would substantiate it upon this. No trials, and no competitive trials, of these two rifles have taken place since 1951. Since April, 1951, there have been no competitive trials with this rifle. Since 1951 this rifle has been converted to the ·300. Since its conversion to the ·300 there have been no competitive trials with these two rifles. Indeed, putting competitive trials aside, the Belgian rifle has not yet completed its ordinary trials. It has not had Arctic trials, and it has not had quite a number of other trials. It is a weapon that has not completed its own trials, but there have been


no competitive trials since 1951. It is on the 1951 trials that the Government appear to rely, those 1951 trials being trials with a different weapon, the ·280.
What were the results of those 1951 trials? We are told that in one the Belgian rifle came out best, and in the other it was the ·303. If that be so, why in the world were not the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Defence at that time told about this result? Why were they sent to Washington briefed by the Army Council, by the Ministry of Supply, and by everybody in a position to know, that this British rifle was clearly and outstandingly the best weapon? Why was it that their successors, the present Secretary of State for War and Minister of Supply and the Prime Minister, who had the information which was then available, assured this House that the British weapon was clearly the best weapon? The Prime Minister gave us that assurance. That assurance was based on a trial that happened in April, 1951. There have been no competitive trials since then.
There was argument as to the speed of individual shots. Of course, in a sense the speed of individual shots simply depends on the human factor, on how fast one can pull the trigger; but that is not what is intended. What is meant by the speed of individual shots is the speed by which one can bring and keep one's sights steady on one's target between each shot. That depends on the steadiness of the rifle when it is fired. I have not fired either rifle; I am not sufficiently expert with a rifle, nor could I be without months of training with both these rifles, to make up my mind as to that degree of steadiness which enables aim to be taken.
However, I am told that the experts with the E.M. rifle could get aimed shots—that is, could hit the target—at 100 to the minute, whereas the Belgian rifle, I am told, has a bigger "jink" and takes a longer time to get back on to the target. Nobody is suggesting that the ordinary National Service man will get up to 100 or 60 or anything like that rate of fire, but the rate of fire he can achieve will be proportionate to the experts', and, indeed, to an inexperienced man a steadier rifle will probably be of greater advantage than to the expert. It

is because of the effect of that human factor—and it is a human factor—that the ordinary man can get a better rate of aimed fire with the English than with the Belgian rifle.
I conclude with a very odd point, and it is the Prime Minister's belief that it is a great advantage in hand-to-hand fighting to be able to have a butt with which one can club an enemy. I can only say that if anybody tries to use a rifle as a club, taking it by the barrel, I will take him on with an umbrella, with my hands, for anybody who takes up a rifle like that is open to a knock out blow on the chin or to the solar plexus; it is easy to get inside his guard. In Commando training the one thing one was taught was not to use a rifle as a dub. One was taught to thrust with it, and the thrusting power of a rifle does not depend on whether it has a butt or not. So we may, perhaps, dispense with that little bit of nonsense.
So we find ourselves committed largely by the stubbornness of the Prime Minister, because it boils down to the personal factor. We are committed by the stubbornness of the Prime Minister, who, progressive as he is in some ways, has equally odd prejudices. He is not in favour of a rifle whose parentage he did not like and whose look he did not like. Having taken that dislike nothing will shake him, and thus we are committed to what I believe is an inferior weapon, what certainly is a foreign weapon, a weapon to which we are committed in complete isolation, the very thing the Prime Minister feared.

5.38 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: The final argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was about a use of the rifle that the Prime Minister and nobody else has ever envisaged. In my early days we were taught that the rifle held with both hands, as a quarter-staff, before the body could be used defensively or offensively, and a blow could be struck with the butt, but nobody has suggested what the hon. and learned Gentleman has, taking it by the barrel and hurling it about like a lacrosse stick.

Mr. Paget: That is what the Prime Minister visualised. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at the new F.N. rifle he will see it may be better for that, for it is of far heavier weight.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am glad to hear the hon. and learned Member say that, because I looked at this rifle this morning and I fired it, and there is no doubt that in the argument to which the hon. and learned Member refers the Belgian rifle is infinitely superior to the British rifle. I think the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) mentioned the possibility of using the E.M. rifle as a club. In my opinion, it has very great disadvantages in that respect. If we were to use that rifle as a club, without ammunition, we should probably have to use it in the manner which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton demonstrated. While a man is doing that he is left exposed to the sort of blow which the hon. and learned Member suggested. On this argument, therefore, the Belgian rifle is superior every time. Perhaps we should leave it there.
I think all of us were a little astounded when the Opposition put this Motion on the Paper. Even those of us who have been in Parliament for only a year or two know that when the House of Commons starts talking about a technical subject—and the design of a rifle is a technicalsubject—it is heading either to make itself look ridiculous or else, in the end, to talk about something completely different. Today we have quite clearly taked about a good deal which is well off the technical point. Perhaps that is as well, because I think we should all get bogged down on the technicalities. I do not pretend to have enough technical knowledge to justify my speaking about the technical aspects.
This morning I saw the Belgian rifle for the first time. I have not fired a rifle at a target for at least eight years, but on this occasion I managed to get a group of which I should have been extremely pleased when I was in the Army. [An Hon. Member: "A foolproof rifle."] I should have been extremely pleased with such a group.

Mr. M. Follick: The hon. and gallant Member should be careful not to awaken the hon. Member alongside him.

Major Legge-Bourke: There were so many interruptions at that point that I did not hear any of them clearly. I think those hon. Members who fired the Belgian rifle this morning were probably sur-

prised at their own success, to a greater or lesser degree, in hitting the target. There could be no doubt whatever left in the mind of anyone who fired the rifle this morning that it is an extremely fine weapon.

Mr. H. Hynd: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman speak a little less loudly in case he awakens his colleague?

Major Legge-Bourke: I am in some sympathy with my hon. Friend because there were several occasions earlier in the debate when hon. Members opposite were speaking which might have tended to dull my hon. Friend's perception of the point I am trying to make. [Hon. Members: "Wake him up."] As time has been given for this debate, I think we are in duty bound to pay the subject under discussion rather more attention, without constant interruptions.
I think all hon. Members who fired the rifle this morning would agree that the Belgian rifle is a very fine weapon. By saying that I do not necessarily mean that the British rifle is any less a fine weapon. As for the conferences and tests which have taken place, there is only one sort of information which can be regarded as reliable, and that is the information from the Government Departments concerned at the time. I shall not attempt to sort out the difference of opinion which appears to have arisen between the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War. All I would say is that, judging from past declarations, I would prefer to take the opinion of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State rather than that of the right hon. Member for Easington.
Nothing which has been said in the debate so far, least of all that said by the hon. Member for Aston, has in any way upset the case made that, for the purpose for which it is required, the Belgian rifle is the best weapon.

Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington): Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington) rose—

Major Legge-Bourke: I have been interrupted enough. This is a very difficult subject and I shall not give way again.


I think the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has disclosed a good deal of the reason why the hon. Member for Aston was so venomous this afternoon. Those who went to Mill Hill this afternoon heard the hon. Member for Aston ask many of the questions which he repeated here and, moreover, we heard him given pretty satisfactory answers to them. Listening to his speech this afternoon, I could not help getting the impression that it is not the Government who are prejudiced in this matter but the hon. Member for Aston, who wentto Mill Hill with a pre-conceived idea in his mind that the Belgian rifle was not as good as the British rifle. He was determined to make that case, whatever the answer to his questions, and he was determined to repeat it this afternoon, whatever resultshe saw from the Belgian rifle when shooting it or watching others shoot it. He went to see it this morning with his mind quite firmly made up, determined not to alter his opinion, no matter what he saw or heard.

Mr. Wyatt: How could I have altered my opinion when the demonstration was of the Belgian rifle only and the British rifle was not demonstrated?

Major Legge-Bourke: It was made quite clear this afternoon that the original Belgian rifle and the British rifle had been tried out together.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: When?

Major Legge-Bourke: In 1951. I think they were then tried in competition with each other. Since then the Belgian rifle has been improved. The data about the British rifle are already known, and what we want now is data about the new Belgian rifle. All the data show that it is a rifle which, at its worst, ranked equal to the British rifle. Since then improvements have been made which presumably must have made it superior.
Perhaps I may return to the subject of the hon. Member for Aston and the purpose of the debate. The hon. Member for Dudley has disclosed one of the purposes of this debate. We all know that the hon. Member for Aston has lost very few opportunities since the war to write articles attacking, particularly the Brigade of Guards. This afternoon he

was wise enough not to attack them himself, but the hon. Member for Dudley made another attack against them.

Mr. Follick: What has that to do with the rifle?

Major Legge-Bourke: It is all part of the same game. We have had this on repeated occasions, and each time the hon. Member for Aston has written an article on the subject he has been found to be wrong. Now the hon. Member for Dudley seeks to carry on those arguments. The hon. Member for Aston has made the most outrageous suggestions about the Prime Minister, particularly in implying outrageous motives and conduct to the Prime Minister, such as that of not telling the House the truth. It seems to me that that is a pretty cheap method of making party cracks or cracks against those sections of the Army which some hon. Members do not happen to like. What hon. Members risk in doing that is the confidence of the British Army in a weapon with which it is about to be supplied in considerable numbers.

Mr. Follick: A foreign weapon.

Major Legge-Bourke: It is no good hon. Members opposite all shouting. To start with, I am deaf in one ear; and in any case, if they all shout at once I cannot hear what they say.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I did not shout.

Major Legge-Bourke: I did not suggest that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) had been shouting. I know it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that occasionally he should interrupt a speaker, but I will absolve him this time.
It seems tome that of all the hon. Members who were least qualified to open a debate of this kind, the hon. Member for Aston was one. I believe that he will have done a great deal of harm to the Army in the public mind if he is taken seriously. Fortunately, I think that he has a limited clientele who do take him seriously, and I hope that it may grow smaller as the years go by.
With the record of the party opposite, it seems strange that they should attack the Prime Minister for trying to hoodwink the British Army and trying to prevent it from being armed with the best


weapon. When I was a Regular soldier before the war, I remember that right hon. and hon. Members opposite voted year by year against the Service Estimates and doing their best to ensure that when war came we were as ill-defended as possible.

Mr. Peart: Your party were the appeasers.

Major Legge-Bourke: I know that the hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted has military experience, and I take my hat off to him for that. I am talking about the years when I was a Regular soldier before the war, as many of my hon. Friends were, and we know that the official Opposition of those years were doing their best to ensure that the Army went into action without some of the equipment which it needed.
I say this debate is nothing short of a party racket to try to make capital out of something which hon. Members opposite know perfectly well the public cannot be fully informed about because it is such a technical subject. I say that they are trading on people's ignorance and that if they were successful in doing what they are trying to they would undermine the confidence of the British Army in one of the best weapons ever produced. The Government are to be congratulated on having made this change. I am quite certain that the step they took was a wise one, and I ask hon. Members opposite to consider whether the line which they are trying to follow is a wise one.
Would it not be better to try to give the British soldier confidence in this weapon rather than to try to undermine his confidence in it? Hon. Members opposite since the war have shown some recognition of the situation in which this country finds itself. I ask them to think again on this matter and not to press it to a Division. This seems to me to be an important matter in which we should have a little harmony. Perhaps I have not contributed greatly to that this afternoon, but I ask all hon. Members to realise their responsibility in this matter and that this issue is one which may, if we consider it in the wrong way, have a most disastrous effect on the whole morale of the British Army, the whole morale of N.A.T.O. and perhaps of the world. That is why I hope that we shall direct a little more reason to this matter and a little less abuse.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: This debate up to now has expressed the opinions, I think, of commissioned officers or ex-commissioned officers. I want to be very brief and to put, as I see it, the "old sweat's" point of view—the point of view of the private, of the man called upon to use whatever weapon he is provided with.

I have probably fired all the rifles that have been mentioned this afternoon. In the middle of the war I was asked to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Americans, even their own weapons of warfare. I have taken part in the demonstration, referred to this afternoon with regard to the ·280 and ·300 rifles, and I say here and now that I am not going to suggest for one moment that this new Belgian rifle is a bad rifle. It is an extremely good rifle and an extremely accurate one. Even people who, it is suggested, are not in their right senses were able to put 12 out of 15 shots very close to, if not actually on, the bull. That went for most of us. It would have been a let-down for those who instructed us if it had been otherwise; it would have been a smirch on British prestige.
I should like to pay tribute to the gentlemen who entertained us this morning. They met us as officers and gentlemen in the way that the Army does, and some of them were probably from the ranks and some of them not. They set out this morning to sell this new rifle. They made no bones about that; that was their job. Their job was to convince the Parliamentary deputation that this was "it"—this was the article, and there was none better anywhere in the world.
Some of us asked rather pertinent questions. I hope that our hosts did not think that we were rude. We asked questions which, in our opinion, were important. My own personal opinion is that, as an instrument of death and destruction of the common enemy, this rifle is inferior to the ·280 rifle. I know that there is a prejudice against the British product because it is too much like a killer. It is too much of a gangster article, short and stubby, with no butt and no ceremonial potential attached to it; but it is a killer. I remember the trials which took place in this country. I was selected as one of the umpires to examine the targets after they had had


shots punched into them. This Belgian rifle was not subjected to the tests to which the British rifle was subjected. We did not have to fire it on the open range and we did not have to punch holes in targets at 600 yards, as two years ago we saw the British rifle do easily. We did not see the trajectory of the bullet, ease of loading, etc., operating. I want it to be quite clear that it was only after an adamant request from one of our party Members this morning that the British rifle was produced.
I hold one thing against this new Belgian rifle. It is suggested that part of the Army or N.A.T.O. Forces should be armed with a rifle which fires only individual shots and part of the troops should be armed with a rifle which can be automatically fired. In the event of the colonel or corporal in charge, as the case may be, deciding that there is about to be a mass attack, these rifles can be converted in a few hours from independent to automatic shooting. By that time all our troops might be dead. We might find ourselves confronting troops armed with automatic, rapid-firing rifles while our own troops could fire only independent, single shots. My experience of the battle front was that steadiness, calm and cool firing was the thing that mattered. The British rifle, by simply touching the button at the side, can be converted to independent shooting or automatic shooting.
Then there is the question of ammunition. I am certain that it could easily be arranged for N.A.T.O. to have the ammunition that would suit the new ·280 rifle. We know for a certainty that normal divisional transport can carry some hundreds of thousands more rounds of ammunition for the ·280 than for the ·300. That is important. I shall be told that I am an old soldier, that 1914–18 was a long time ago, and that now aircraft and helicopters can be used to drop weapons and ammunition. But I am all for the fellow who wants the ammunition having it when he wants it, and not when it is too late.
I believe that this new rifle would be easy to produce, but we have heard not one solitary word—I hope we shall hear from the Minister of Supply if he takes part in the debate—about the production of this rifle. We have heard not one word about the technical difficulties in the

production of the ·280. It is a first-class technical job; it has been modified and improved.
Please God that none of us will be called upon to take part in a war. It is a sad reflection when we stand in the House to think that those of us who took part in the so-called war to end wars are talking about something more efficient to destroy the other fellow in a future war. It is a sad reflection that it has to be done, but we have to face facts as they are, and facts are very stubborn things.
I believe that there has been a compromise. I believe that the ugly killer British rifle has been condemned on the ground that it is not a nice-looking article. Even if it has not been condemned, it has not been accepted quite so easily. I believe there has been a compromise and an effort to bring the best of the British rifle into the Belgian rifle, together with the stock and all the necessary appurtenances so that it can be used for ceremonial work.
If this rifle is to be produced for war, it should be produced for that job. We heard the opinion given on the trials by the Americans, Canadians, Japanese, Hindus, Indians and our own people that the British rifle was second to none at that time, better than anything they had ever seen before. It was thoroughly and completely tested. It was subjected to the sandblast test, the sandbox and water and moisture tests. We saw none of that this morning. If this rifle can come through those tests as well as the British rifle, then I should be prepared, in addition to saying that it is a good rifle, to say that it is a jolly good rifle.
The job of this House and the country is to give to British troops, wherever they may be and at the time they are needed, the best possible instruments with which to defend themselves. My own conviction, speaking as one who has used them all and who has tried in his limited capacity to assess the value and technical difficulties of them all, is that our own rifle, had it been adopted internationally and had the ammunition question been settled, would have been acclaimed still today, as it was at the time by the Prime Minister, to be the best instrument in the world for the purposes for which it was designed.

6.3 p.m.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who, I believe, is a fellow cavalryman, in some of his arguments. I am quite convinced that if a test were carried out in regard to penetration, a ·300 bullet would penetrate further than a ·280. This was part of the gravamen of the American argument, that they preferred a rifle which had greater penetrating power than the ·280.

I thought that the whole case from the Opposition today was that the British rifle had been adapted to change over to a ·300 round. If the hon. Member was arguing in favour of a ·280 round, the whole of the case of the mover of the Motion falls to the ground.

Mr. Jack Jones: What I said was that I saw a ·280 demonstrated at 600 yards and penetrating British helmets, the best in the world. That is good enough. It kills the fellows who are wearing them.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I agree, but I do not think anybody ever fires a rifle at 600 yards in these days.
As it stands before it is modified, the Belgian rifle can fire either automatic or single shot. It should be a case of discipline whether it should be used as a single shot weapon or not. A lot has been said today about tests, but my information is that when these tests were carried out, the Americans categorically said at the time that if they were going into production on either of the two rifles, they would eventually prefer the Belgian rifle. But they did not at that time say that they were going into production on either of the two.
There is a history of this, and I am one of those who was in on it from the beginning. I was very much in favour of the British ·280 rifle, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) knows. A panel was set up in 1945 to go into research on a rifle of this nature; it produced its report in about 1947. Then there was a period of three years of development. That was the time, during those three years, that the right hon. Member for Easington, as Minister of Defence, should have had consultations on a high level with other N.A.T.O. Powers; but no consultations of any sort took place, and this bombshell was

suddenly thrown into the House of Commons that the British Army was to adopt the ·280 rifle.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply asked the right hon. Member for Easington, when in office, on 6th July, 1951, whether Ministerial discussions had taken place, and the reply was "No" and that a working party had been working on it. Since then, the N.A.T.O. Powers approached the right hon. Gentleman demanding that there should be discussions on a Ministerial level. And "The Times" of 3rd December, 1953, said that that was the time when discussions should have taken place. That is to say, during the period of three years discussions on a Ministerial level should have taken place. That is the back history. The then Government were at fault in not realising that it was a question not only of a rifle which would suit the British Army, but of standardisation, both of ammunition and of equipment, throughout the whole of the N.A.T.O. Forces. A lot of time and trouble would have been saved had the Government at that time had earlier consultations at a higher level.
As far as production is concerned, the hon. Member for Rotherham said that it had not been mentioned. I understand, however, that one manufacturing unit can produce six of the Belgian rifles to five of the British rifles. When magnified into hundreds of thousands, this makes a very great difference indeed and is a great argument in favour of the Belgian rifle.
As far as firing 60 shots a minute is concerned, a lot of rubbish is talked about this. I had the honour of having infantry battalions under my command in the war, and I have had commanding officers come to me and say, "Please, sir, may we leave our rifles behind?" The reason for that was that the ·303 was out of date and heavy. It was quite useless in the sort of rat-hunt which took place on an objective after it had been captured.
Firing a rifle as was done in the Boer War, or even in the 1914–18 war, at long range no longer occurs, because of smoke from bombing and artillery fire and smoke put down either by the enemy or by our own troops. What our troops need is something that will kill a man at 30, 40 or 50 yards in a haze of smoke, and kill him quickly, and something that


will fire quickly. But I pray that our men do not fire 60 rounds a minute. They would very soon be out of ammunition, and nobody would be able to produce sufficient for them in the front line for their ammunition to be maintained.
There is one aspect which applies to the British rifle but is not common to the Belgian rifle. If one fires the British rifle off the left shoulder, all the ejected cases come out in one's face, which would be a most painful procedure. Anyone who has served knows perfectly well that a large proportion of men fire off the left shoulder. This is a great handicap to the British rifle which does not apply to the Belgian rifle.
There are indications that Canada is prepared to go into manufacture of the Belgian rifle. There are very certain indications that America is much more prepared to go into the manufacture of this rifle than of the British ·280 rifle. It is inconceivable that we should arm our Army with a rifle which can be manufactured only in this country. If we can persuade the Americans to adopt this rifle—the Canadians have already said that probably they will go into production of it—that is a conclusive argument for deciding on the Belgian rifle, even if our own was better.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The argument which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) has just adduced would have been conclusive if, on the one hand, there were no standardisation on the British rifle and if, on the other, there were no real prospect of standardisation on the Belgian rifle. But my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) has dealt with the important aspect of the standardisation. The point which neither the Prime Minister nor most of those hon. Members opposite who have spoken today—and certainly not the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke)—seemed to gather throughout the debate was that we have no sort of guarantee at all that, as a result of the decision of the Government, there will be any standardisation. It is necessary, therefore, to remind the House of some of the very important questions put by my hon. Friend.
First, are the Americans going to use the rifle? Are the Belgians going to use the rifle? To put it more plainly, is it within the certain knowledge of the Government that they are going to use the ·300 round; and who, in the certain knowledge of the Government, is going to use the Belgian rifle? It is not sufficient to justify this decision by saying, as the Prime Minister did as recently as last week, that Canada is very interested. That is the utmost of the final pronouncement about standardisation. That is why I press the question, not as to what the Government think and hope, but whether the Secretary of State for War can positively tell us that other countries will use this round and this rifle? That is a point which was not touched upon by any hon. Members opposite who have spoken in this debate.
We were told by the Secretary of State for War—I hope he will correct me if I am misquoting him—that in April and May, 1951, tests were performed, one of which showed the Belgian rifle to be better and the other of which showed it to be equal. Why, then, in March, 1952, did he tell the House that the British rifle was undoubtedly the best in the world, and why did the Prime Minister say the same thing? Let him look up the debate on the Army Estimates in 1952 and the Secretary of State will see that, after those tests, he was saying that undoubtedly the British rifle was the best in the world.
If we stick to that latter statement, either the 1951 tests must be discredited or they have no relevance to the matter. In either instance they cannot be quoted asan argument in the case advanced by hon. Members opposite. The Prime Minister said only last week that he had tried very hard to get the ·280 adopted by N.A.T.O. after the tests in 1951 had shown that there was not a superior weapon in existence. That is the kind of statement that we have to set against the vague and conflicting information which we have had today.
Without any disrespect to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Worthing, I would say that the information which he claimed to have about the comparative production of these two rifles would have carried more weight if it had come from the Prime Minister. I cannot think that, if the right hon. Gentleman had been possessed of such


information, he would have refrained from bringing it forward, because it was most relevant to the discussion. If the Prime Minister had known about it and it was correct, which I very much doubt, he ought to have brought it forward for the House to consider. The fact that he has not done so makes us feel that the Government do not believe they have a solid case.
There is no doubt that the British weapon is shorter, lighter and handier than the Belgian rifle. On the question of the rate of fire, what we were told this morning was that an expert practitioner could fire off 100 with either of them. The average practitioner will get a high rate of fire with the British rifle. Indeed, it was at one time agreed by those favouring the Belgian rifle that a slower rate of fire was a positive advantage. That is what we were told by those whom the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State appointed to describe the rifle to us. Now he must tell us another story. That is why it is almost impossible to have confidence in the Government's decision.
We have got a longer, heavier, and less handy weapon with a slower rate of fire, a rifle on which, according to any information we have been given, there have been no comparative tests with the British rifle except one in 1951, after which the right hon. Gentleman said that the British rifle was the best. This Belgian rifle is a rifle the tests of which are not complete yet, and of which there is apparently not even a likelihood of its universal or even widespread adoption.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) on the cogency and brevity of his speech. This debate is expected to conclude round about 7 o'clock, and the Secretary of State for War and I are expected to share the remaining time. The celebrated military experts on the other side of the House have the advantage of me. They profess a familiarity with small arms technicalities which I do not possess. I have to rely, as I did when I was Minister of Defence and Secretary of State for War, on the advice tendered to me by technical experts channelled through the Army Council and other appropriate Govern-

ment bodies. That is the correct procedure for a member of the Government to follow.
But the Prime Minister oddly thinks otherwise, as indeed do some hon. Members opposite, particularly hon. and gallant Members. They have conceived the notion, as the Prime Minister has done, that testing the rifle by firing it themselves, is sufficient for the purpose. Take an example. The Prime Minister told us one day last week in reply to a Question, that he had actually fired this Belgian rifle and had found it very satisfactory indeed. What did that mean? That it was satisfactory to the Prime Minister having fired the rifle, and no more than that. It did not prove, not by as much as a hair's breadth, that the rifle he had fired was superior to the rifle he was alleged to have fired 12 months ago. The same applies—I speak without intending any offence—to other hon. Members.
This morning there was a trial arranged by the Government, and several hon. Members from both sides of the House were invited to attend. They had the opportunity of firing the Belgian rifle. Some of them have pronounced it excellent; some are not so sure. Some believe it requires further modification. What does that mean? It only means that hon. Members who have fired the rifle have been more or less satisfied. That is not the kind of test we require before we embark on production on a large scale.

Major Tufton Beamish: Who ever suggested it was?

Mr. Shinwell: What I am saying is that there is an impression in some quarters—it has been ventilated in the course of this debate and previously—that if hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman fire the rifle and regard it as satisfactory, that is sufficient for our purpose. [Hon. Members: "No."] Very well, I accept the denial. We will dismiss that and we will come back to the point that we must rely on our technical experts.
Before I deal with the recommendations of the technical experts, may I say that some hon. Members have expressed the view that this debate was unnecessary, that they could think of many other subjects much more important. I agree


wholeheartedly but, having heard some part of the debate, they will probably agree that it is worth whole, on the assumption that there may be another conflict, that we must equip our men with the very best weapons, and that we must ensure that they are provided with the best rifle. I think that will be accepted, and I think they will also agree, having heard the speech of the Prime Minister, that the Government have no case.
The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by rebuking my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), who made a remarkably able speech. It was factual, argumentative, occasionally a little disturbing to the right hon. Gentleman, but, after all, what does that matter? The right hon. Gentleman rebuked my hon. Friend for using what he described as insulting language. That comes strangely from the right hon. Gentleman when I recall the language he used, the picturesque, colourful, turgid, lurid—I could find many other adjectives with which to describe his language—with insults to the Service Ministers in the Labour Government, when he expressed no confidence in them, thus exposing his prejudice as he did against the Labour Government as a whole. So the right hon. Gentleman is the last man in the world to talk about insulting language. Perhaps that is the reason he has adopted this attitude on the Belgian rifle—he dislikes the British rifle because he disliked the Labour Government who were behind the British rifle. Is that the trouble? Perhaps we can be left with our suspicions. [Interruption.] I was hoping that I might evoke a reply from the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman founds his case on two items. The first is that this rifle has been tested by technical experts under the supervision of the War Office and, therefore, it must be accepted by the Government. The second point he has made is that this rifle will lead to standardisation. At this point I might tell the story of the Washington conversations and what led to them.
It is perfectly true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) said, that over a period of time from 1946 experiments were being conducted by the small arms experts in order to produce a rifle superior to the Lee-Enfield in common use for the British

Army. Those experiments were naturally prolonged, which was desirable, because we must not reach hasty conclusions about the production of important weapons of this kind. Eventually we were informed at the War Office that trials had been undertaken internally and that the rifle was regarded as a satisfactory one.
It was in 1951, probably a little before April or May, that it was decided that the rifle should undergo what we regarded at the time as its conclusive trials. As a result it was recommended by the military experts, and was accepted by the Army Council, by the Minister of Defence and the Government, as the best rifle which could be produced. We were not unaware of what was happening in other countries. We knew that the authorities in the United States were contemplating a modification of the Garand rifle. Indeed, so dissatisfied were they with it that they had produced a carbine which was largely in use in Korea instead of the Garand rifle itself.
We were also acquainted with the fact that the Belgians were promoting tests with their new rifle. Nevertheless, with the knowledge we had of what was happening in other countries in regard to these tests, we still maintained that ours was the best. This is a reply to the right hon. Gentleman, who spoke as if we acted in isolation. The knowledge of what was happening not only here but in the United States, in Belgium and perhaps elsewhere for all I know, reached N.A.T.O. and it was suggested that there should be ministerial discussions. Naturally we agreed. We did not want to push this rifle without some consultation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in reply to an interjection, referred to a decision reached in April or May, 1951, and made quite a song about it. That was a provisional decision. No firm undertaking was given at the time to the War Office or to the small-arms experts that we would enter into production of the ·280 on a large scale. Indeed, the Ministry of Supply were behind us in that respect.
What happened when we went to Washington at the end of September, 1951? It took some time before that conference could be arranged, but that usually happens. The Americans were there with all their experts, there was a Ministerial representative from France


and, I think, a technical expert. With no disrespect to the French, however, they were not vitally interested because it was quite clear that they had neither the money nor, in their view, the need for any new rifle at that time. The Canadians and ourselves were there. The Belgians were not represented. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware that the Belgians were not represented at the Washington conference. We knew, of course, what they were doing.
The Prime Minister talked about a vote being taken. Of course, there was no vote whatsoever taken of the Ministers there. What had happened at the trials which were undertaken a few months before was reported to us. Those trials were conducted in the United States and, to begin with, it was the American technical experts who reported. The leading American technical expert was Colonel Stuedler. He had served in the German Army in the 1914–18 war and had gone to the United States and had become one of the leading technical experts. I do not say this out of prejudice. I state the fact that I never saw such an exhibition of prejudice against anything British as I saw on that occasion. Indeed, it was so bad and directed against our own technical experts that I was bound to take up the cudgels on their behalf. I did so without any nonsense about it, much to the discomfort of Colonel Stuedler and some of his friends.
Our technical experts at that conference, Lieut.-General Whiteley, one of our most able generals, Brigadier Gordon and Brigadier Barlow, who represented the technical arms in the Army, advised us that we should stand by the ·280. As I have said, no vote was taken, but, far from being adamant about one aspect of the problem, I was inclined to consider, as indeed I did, the question of what kind of round should be accepted. I was influenced to some extent by the argument about the round, although I would not yield on the question of the rifle. When I came back to this country I stated my views. But we did not agree then to enter into production on a large scale. I answered questions from the Front Bench. In the course of them I said to hon. Members who interrogated me on
the subject that all that we intended to do was to engage in a token production. All this can be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
What has happened since then? All that has happened is that the Government have changed their minds. There is no difficulty whatever about the round. If I may perpetrate a pun, it is accepted all round. No objection is taken to the ·300 type of ammunition. That can be used in any of the rifles. That is an important consideration. That is where standardisation comes in. It does not matter so much about the type of rifle—I make that concession—so long as the round is satisfactory to all the parties concerned.
What about the question of standardisation? The Prime Minister, and the Government and the Secretary of State for War, will have a case if the Secretary of State says to us that the United States, who obviously will be he largest consumers, are going to accept this rifle. They accept the round, but in accepting the round it is not certain that they will use it. They object to the British rifle. I am sure that the Prime Minister will acquit me of any prejudice against the United States—I have never expressed myself in that fashion—when I say that somehow or other I gathered the impression at the Washington conference, and have thought so since, that the American authorities, certainly the technical experts, perhaps inspired by somebody or other, were determined that whatever they did they would not accept the British rifle. I say that honestly and quite objectively.
The Prime Minister said that this was not a party matter. As far as I am concerned, it is not a party matter at all, but it has been largely made into a party matter by the rather obdurate attitude of the Prime Minister. I was about to use another word, but I drew back just in time. I do not want to insult the Prime Minister. It is not necessary. I want to put him right for the good of the country, for the good of the Army, and for the good of his own soul.
Where does standardisation come in? The French have not expressed their willingness to accept it. What about Canada? The Prime Minister talked about Canada and I said in an interjection that I had had discussions with


Brooke Claxton, the Minister of Defence. He said to me, "I am not going to take sides. What we are concerned about is who is going to produce the rifle and the round."
I appreciate that Canada is a great producing country. She is concerned about production. She wants to be a universal provider, and good luck to her. Canadians were not going to consume the rifle on a large scale. They have not the troops and do not intend to have them in future. They have other ideas about how to conduct military operations, but I cannot go into that now. So there is no standardisation except in the acceptance of the round itself. The question with which we are left is which is the best rifle to use this round.
Let us discard all this silly nonsense, this piffling stuff about using the rifle for ceremonial purposes, or about using the butt end of the rifle, because even the Prime Minister admitted that it was irrelevant. On the assumption, which I hope is falsified, that another conflict emerges and our men have to enter the conflict, we are concerned with the fact that they want to be provided with the right weapon. It is not for the Prime Minister to determine whether it is the right weapon, or for some hon. Members to determine it because they are more familiar with the use of a rifle. It is for the military technical experts. [Hon. Members "Hear, hear."] But the technical experts decided that the ·280 was the best, and the technical experts have decided that any rifle could be used, including this very satisfactory British rifle, with the new ·300 round.

The Prime Minister: Which you did not accept.

Mr. Shinwell: But it is now accepted. We make that concession to the Prime Minister. We have that part of standardisation agreed upon. Therefore, I say to the Prime Minister, "If we accept the ·300 round, you accept the British rifle. Fair enough? And do not yield any longer to American pressure."

The Prime Minister: I have not had any pressure of any sort or kind on the subject from the United States.

Mr. Shinwell: That is strange. I have some notes here which I have not used

so far. They are that the Prime Minister said he had gone to Washington and he had discussed the matter with President Truman who had expressed his disagreement about the acceptance of the British rifle. That is what the Prime Minister said. I do not know what that denotes, except that he accepted what the President said. That is the difference between the Prime Minister and myself. I went to Washington and they did everything they possibly could to persuade me to accept a modification of the Garand rifle. They did their utmost to persuade me to abandon the project of a British rifle. I did not yield to American pressure. That is the difference between the Prime Minister and myself.
I am bound to say that this is a very sad afternoon for the Government, not only because of their rejection of a British rifle but because their readiness to accept a rifle designed by somebody from another country, in spite of the fact that our experts recommended the use of our rifle. Is it not strange that on the same afternoon they should be castigated—and quite properly—because of their trade agreement with Japan? Is it not strange to have these two subjects in an afternoon exposing the Government for what they are? It is about time they were exposed.
I am going to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] I will give the Secretary of State time to wind up the debate. I suggest that just as there was not a firm decision to enter on mass production of the British rifle there is no firm decision by the present Government to enter on mass production of the Belgian rifle. Why can we not wait? Why can we not have further trials conducted in this country—not the kind of trials we had this morning, but under various conditions—dust trials, trials affected by the weather, whether it is hot or cold? Why not have trials in Belgium, in the United States, in the Colonies?
There is no hurry about this rifle; we are not going to enter production at once. I suggest that we conduct further experiments with both rifles and with the ·300 round—I accept that. That would be fair to both sides, and in particular it would be fair to the British Army. I hope that the Prime Minister will accept that. I know that it would mean yielding a little, but, after all, if the Prime Minister could


yield to the Americans, he might yield to somebody in this country. That would not be a bad thing.

The Prime Minister: I am told that I yielded. All that happened was that I could not persuade the President of the United States to accept our rifle.

Mr. Shinwell: Did ever a man give his case away so readily as that? Now the Prime Minister says that he could not persuade President Truman to accept our rifle, so he is accepting the Belgian rifle. Did not the Prime Minister try to persuade President Truman to accept the British rifle? Oh yes, he did; he must have done so, because he thought it was the best rifle. I want hon. Members to notice the time. This occurred during the lifetime of the present Government. The Prime Minister went to the United States and spoke to President Truman. He said, "Mr. President, here is a splendid rifle, tested by our experts. We want you to accept it, we want standardisation." President Truman said, "No, we cannot accept the British rifle," at which the Prime Minister said, "Well, I am very sorry. I shall have to go back and tell them in our country and we shall have to get another story from the War Office in order to convince the world that the British rifle is not as good as we thought it was." What a shocking state of affairs.
I tell the Prime Minister that this is a squalid affair. Nobody knows better than the Prime Minister what a high respect I have for him. I say that quite sincerely; but he ought to feel a little ashamed of himself for what has happened in this connection.

The Prime Minister: I do not.

Mr. Shinwell: The Prime Minister should. As for the Secretary of State for War, I do not bother very much about him. I will tell him why: there have been so many blunders, irrevocable blunders, at the War Office that he ought to be ashamed to show himself in this House.

6.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has cut me very short of time—[Hon. Members: "The Rule is suspended."]—and I hope

that the House will not force me into too many discussions along by-roads. At the start of my speech, I should say to the right hon. Gentleman that he may ignore me, but neither when he was responsible nor since have I ignored his own actions, and I have been shaken, during both periods, by some of the mistakes he has made—

Mr. Shinwell: Tell us some.

Mr. Head: —not the least the speech he has just delivered.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted his conversation with Mr. Brooke Claxton. What he did not say was that Canada has bought 2,000 of these rifles for troop trials with a view, if successful—the same as us—to making that rifle in Canada under Belgian licence. That is very relevant. The right hon. Member also did not quote another, and perhaps the most important, remark by Mr. Brooke Claxton. Mr. Brooke Claxton was responsible for the conference which the right hon. Member attended. When the right hon. Member had decided to go unilaterally for production of the ·280 inch E.M.2 and the conference started, Mr. Brooke Claxton said that N.A.T.O. had received no greater setback than failure to agree on that standardisation in small arms which the present situation demanded. That was the start.
Let us get it straight from the beginning. What are the real points of difference between the two sides of the House this afternoon? One side of the House, as I understand, says that the E.M.2 is the best rifle; it has British invention and prestige behind it. Now we have standardised on the ·300 round, why not give the E.M.2 a·300 inch calibre, because we have overcome the problem of standardisation? This side of the House says that if the difference between the two rifles is marginal, surely it is common sense to standardise on the F.N. rifle because we then have the prospect—I put it higher than the prospect—of manufacture of this rifle under licence in Canada and production in North America, outside this country. I maintain that in any future war a Government which felt happy about having the whole of their rifle production in this country would lack vision.

Mr. Shinwell: I never said that.

Mr. Head: I say it. The right hon. Member would adopt the course of having the E.M.2 with a ·300-inch calibre, by which he would rule out any possibility of production outside this country.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Canada could produce the E.M.2; there is no difficulty about that.

Mr. Head: Of course, but the right hon. Member is rather ingenuous. The point is that Canada has stated that for her Government to manufacture a rifle which has been turned down by the United States—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—Hon. Members cannot have it both ways; why do they not face facts?—would be a course which they could not accept. They state that, if the rifle is satisfactory, they intend to manufacture under licence. That brings with it North American production, outside this country. I say to hon. Members in all parts of the House that that is a cardinal consideration in this problem. In the last war the small arms factory at Birmingham was damaged and for a period our rifle production was in jeopardy. In the next war, with atomic attack, does the right hon. Member think we could rely on the production of rifles entirely in this country?

Mr. Shinwell: No.

Mr. Head: If he does not, I say to him that by adopting the E.M.2 he would forfeit all prospect of production. [Hon. Members: "No."] That is a fact.

Mr. Wyatt: Could I explain to the Secretary of State, as he does not understand? If the Belgian F.N.300 is made in Canada and we run short of our E.M.2, we can get the Belgian F.N. from Canada and fire the same ammunition. We shall not be any worse off.

Mr. Head: It ought to have dawned on the hon. Gentleman that, if the Government had two rifles in an Army, it would mean two different lots of spare parts. That makes a difference.
We are on a controversial subject, and I should like to deploy my case, if the House will allow me to do so. What I am indicating, to sum up the discussion so far, is that if the difference between the two is marginal, the advantages of standardisation, especially for production outside this country, are of paramount importance.
There are those who will not accept that because they say, particularly as the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) has said, "We want a rifle that is British-invented and is a triumph for British inventive powers"—and no one can deny that. I say that the precedents for these things being judged solely on their merits are numerous. There are the Besa, the Bren, the Lewis gun, the Maxim and the Vickers—all foreign inventions. The initial idea for what is new in the E.M.2 was the work of a Pole. Do not let us make too slavish a business of sticking to British prestige. We all like it and want it. But this is a matter of such vast importance that we must follow the right course.
Supposing we say, despite the fact that the Americans and Canadians have expressed a preference for the F.N. rifle, "We are not coming with you, we are going to adopt the E.M.2." [Interruption.] Where hon. Members are false in the deployment of their case is that they express a preference which opens no prospect of production in America, if they say that on no account will they manufacture the F.N. That problem is a very important one. I am saying that to take that course would be to deal a blowat efforts of standardisation in N.A.T.O. The strength of the forces of the N.A.T.O. countries will be increased immensely if the principle of standardisation, not only in arms but in procedure, can be widened and can progress. We now have an example to show other countries. What will be the result if we, of all countries, over the most important matter of standardisation of all, set an example of completely unilateral action? I say that it will be disastrous.
The other day I saw General Gruenther. I asked him, "How is standardisation going?" He said, "It is difficult because inevitably every nation thinks that what it makes itself is the best." There had been a conference to try to standardise the "jeep." Everyone said, "Ours is the best." General Gruenther said that the stage which they had then reached—I hope it is better now—was that the only thing standardised among the "jeeps" was the wind in their tyres.
Our example in this matter is important. Therefore, if the differences between the two rifles are marginal, these considerations suggest that the right thing


to do is to go for the rifle which offers the maximum prospects of standardisation. I now wish to consider the relative merits of the E.M.2 with a ·300 inch calibre and the F.N. with a ·300 inch calibre. Before doing so, I would say that when the right hon. Member for Easington said that there was no hurry he was absolutely wrong. This is a matter of the greatest urgency to the British Army. We are still equipped with an out-dated rifle and the sooner we get into production with a new rifle the better.
These comparative and competitive trials have been going on for a long time and the only thing that has been and is really absolutely typical of such trials is a disagreement between those who show their rifles. Let me mention this question of trials.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made, I would recall that the Prime Minister said that this was not a matter which could be said to be urgent as it would not affect our position for a good many years to come. [Hon. Members: "What date?"] Nineteen fifty-one. I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: was it many months ago when he and the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that the Belgian rifle ought to be proceeded with? If so, why has nothing happened since about production?

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman must allow me to make my own speech. As for the Prime Minister's remark, that was made in 1951. It is now 1954, and to go into production with this rifle under present circumstances is a matter which has now become urgent.
There were, in 1951, these trials which have been discussed. At those trials the British technical board who undertook them said, as the Prime Minister has already said, that the F.N. rifle was the more efficient of the two. User trials took place. There was a difference of opinion, three voting for the E.M.2 and three for the F.N. It is perfectly correct that the then Secretary of State for War, theright hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), and the right hon. Member for Easington were advised in favour of the E.M.2.
I only said that this was the result of the only trials held in 1951. I quote this

to show that the idea that the Belgian rifle is immensely inferior to the E.M.2 was not at that stage based on any trials. That is the fact.

Mr. Strachey: The right hon. Gentleman should explain to the House the extraordinary mystery that, according to him, the only trials made show that on balance the preference of expert opinion was for the Belgian rifle, but he then agrees—he has just admitted it—that the Army Council promptly took the decision to recommend to the Government of the day that the British rifle was the better. Not only so, but the Army Council gave exactly the same recommendation to the right hon. Gentleman when he came into office, and also gave the same recommendation in favour of the British rifle to the Prime Minister, who took that recommendation with him to Washington. How can the right hon. Gentleman account for that if the trials had all been the other way?

Mr. Head: The trials were exactly as I have stated. If the right hon. Gentleman had waited for a moment, he would have heard that I was going to continue by saying that the result of those trials was not agreed to by the then Director-General of Artillery, and the Army Council recommendation must have been made as the result of that.
I believe it to be a most significant and important point that the problem which confronted this Government was, assuming we standardised on ·300 inch, should it be the F.N. rifle or the E.M.2? An exactly similar problem had confronted the right hon. Member for Dundee, West and the right hon. Member for Easington. That problem was that at one stage the United States agreed to standardise on ·280 inch, and at a Joint Board meeting they said to us "What are you going to do?" On 19th January, 1951, a signal was sent from the War Office to the British Joint Services Mission in America. The War Office said that they agreed to standardise on ·280-inch and develop the F.N. rifle; that is to say, they made a choice then between the E.M.2 and the F.N., and they chose the F.N.

Mr. Shinwell: The Americans did.

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from


a Cabinet paper. [Interruption.] I shall not run away from any body from that side of the House, I can assure hon. Members. I am not accustomed to doing that. If the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from a Cabinet paper to which I have not access, perhaps he will lay it on the Table.

Mr. Head: I am quoting from no Cabinet paper—

Mr. Shinwell: Then what is it?

Mr. Head: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he will not be so impatient. I am stating that War Office policy as stated to the United States was, "We will standardise on ·280 inch." Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman knew I do not know, but he cannot have it both ways. He was Minister of Defence; he ought to have known. The right hon. Member for Dundee, West was Secretary of State for War, so I presume that he did know.

Mr. Strachey: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that during our period of office a decision was made to standardise on the Belgian F.N. I think he is completely misinformed.

Mr. Head: Very well. A signal was sent—

Mr. Shinwell: Sent by whom?

Mr. Head: A signal was sent on 19th January, 1951, and it was sent to Washington—

Mr. Shinwell: By whom?

Mr. Head: By the War Office—

Mr. Shinwell: Who signed it—

Mr. Head: I do not know who signed it; it was sent by the War Office—[Laughter.]

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is all very well to have foolish laughter, but the right hon. Gentleman has quoted a signal which he alleges was sent by the War Office and he has indicated that right hon. Gentlemen on this side—including myself—are responsible. I should like to have information whether in those circumstances the papers and all the details should be laid on the Table?

Mr. Speaker: There is a general rule to the effect that the House is entitled to the best evidence in a disputed matter, and that if documents are cited they should be laid on the Table. But there are exceptions in the case of documents which, by their nature, are secret, and so on. I do not know enough about this document to be able to pronounce on it.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you are aware that in order to fortify myself with information on this matter—as it is some considerable time since I occupied the position of Minister of Defence—I was in communication with the Ministry of Defence one day last week. I asked whether a certain telegram could be made available to me, a telegram sent by the Minister of Defence to Washington, to our representative there. I was informed that the Permanent Under-Secretary declined to allow me access to the telegram. If we are to be refused access to documents of this sort, then I deny, with great respect, the right of the right hon. Gentleman to use documents of that kind.

Mr. Strachey: Further to that point of order. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman is including documents of this sort he must explain to the House—if it is so, if the War Office had come down in favour of the Belgian rifle during our period of office—why, months after, the Prime Minister was pleading for the British rifle. How can that possibly be so?

Mr. Head: I think part of the trouble of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West is that he is not allowing me to develop my argument to show what happened with the United States after that was done. The point I was making to the right hon. Gentleman is that after they reached the decision—[Interruption.]—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thought—[Interruption.] The fact is that the War Office said at this period that their object, the object of the British, was to standardise on ·280 inch and the F.N. rifle. That is a fact.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry, but is it not a serious accusation against the War Office that the War Office—

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman was the Minister.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not a very serious allegation that the right hon. Gentleman is now making, that while the War Office were advising the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Defence that the Government should accept their recommendations, at the same time they were advocating another course in representations to Washington? Is not that a very serious accusation?

Mr. Head: That would be a most serious accusation, but I think the point which the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked is that this is January, 1951. The period when the right hon. Gentleman decided to go ahead with the ·280 inch and the E.M.2 was later, when the Americans went back on their recommendation that they should standardise on the ·280 inch. The point is this. At one period the Americans said "The ·280 inch," and we said, "All right, F.N." Later the Americans said, "Wash out ·280 inch, we are going to have ·300 inch." We then said, "E.M.2." I am not saying that was right or wrong; I am stating the fact.
That, I say, has a significance to this debate and the significance is this: that the question which then went before the War Office—accepting standardisation on ·280 inch, shall it be the E.M.2 or the F.N.?—is the same question we had. At that time the same result obtained. They went for the F.N. just as we are going for it now. I agree, and I grant the right hon. Gentleman that later the Americans said, "We overrule the previous decision about ·280 inch and we are going over to ·300 inch. "The decision was then altered and we decided on the E.M.2 and ·280 inch. That was the time about which the right hon. Gentleman was thinking. But the fact remains that in January, before the later decision in April, the decision was to go for the F.N. and the standardisation of ·280 inch was made.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Does the right hon. Gentleman now assert—[Hon. Members: "Order."] I am making a point of order. Does the right hon. Gentleman now assert that in January, 1951, there was a decision of the Army Council to the effect that he has indicated? Will he answer that?

Mr. Head: I do not. But what I state, which is a fact, is that, a signal—

Mr. Wyatt: At low level.

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman can call it a low level one, but if anything was a policy signal this was. There was a signal that our object, the Joint Committee's object, was to tell the Americans our views on standardising on the ·280 inch and the F.N. All I am—

Mr. Shinwell: Read out the whole statement.

Mr. Head: I have not the whole document.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been led to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was quoting from a document—[Hon. Members: "Nonsense."]—conveying instructions from the War Office to the American authorities. That was what we were led to believe. Now when I ask him to read out the whole statement, he informs us that he has not the document before him. Is there any means of obtaining protection from this kind of tactic employed by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of order. If the Minister is quoting from a document the right hon. Gentleman ought to be allowed to see it, with the exceptions which I have mentioned. But there is a great difference between quoting from a document and merely stating its purport. I did not hear the Secretary of State quoting from any document and I think that the fact that he has not it with him shows that he was not quoting from it.

Mr. Head: I did not quote from a document, it is true, but I will quote direct from the expert who briefed me on this subject:

"The U.K."—

Mr. Shinwell: Where is the document?

Mr. Head: I have not the document, but it is unlikely that the War Office would tell me this if it were incorrect. [Interruption.] I am telling hon. Gentlemen facts and they do not like them. I repeat
The U.K. object remains complete standardisation on the F.N. and the ·280 as recommended in the Joint Report.
That is quoted direct from my brief from the experts.


What I should like to say is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have made their points. They have done their best to prove that they are right. What I would say is that this rifle is a really fine rifle. [Interruption.] I have been interrupted. I regret just as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite that I am detaining the House. I have been interrupted a great deal. It is only right that I should have a chance to answer the case.
If we adopt the F.N. rifle, hon. Gentlemen should not overlook the following advantages. First, we should gain a year in production. Secondly, it is easier to make. Thirdly, it has a simpler mechanism as hon. Gentlemen who went to shoot it today must have seen. Fourthly, it is simpler to maintain. Fifthly, it is simpler to teach as, again, hon. Gentlemen who went to fire it today must have seen. Sixthly, there is less recoil. Seventhly, I want to point out to hon. Gentlemen that one of the great objections made by the hon. Member for Aston was concerned with the flash. The overcoming of flash both in the E.M.2 and the F.N. has the same remedy—the bayonet. [Hon. Members: "It has not."] I say that the remedy is the same—the bayonet. Both rifles have flash and, at night, the bayonet is the flash suppressor.
Practically every battalion in the last war had it as a standing order that any man shooting a rifle at night should put on a bayonet, and a very wise rule it was. It is not great hardship to put the bayonet on at night to prevent flash. This rifle has slightly more than the other, but the remedy against flash is identical in both cases.
I would also point out to hon. Gentlemen that the rifle has undergone most extensive user trials recently to be quite certain that it was all right and wise to buy 5,000 for troop trials. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said, "Why not have another set of competitive trials all over again?" The last lot took nearly two years. I believe that if we had more we should probably have a very inconclusive report. What the experts have advised us, and what I believe to be sound, is that the differences between the two rifles are marginal: the advantages of gaining standardisation are great.
Provided we satisfy ourselves by user trials that this rifle is all right, let us go for it. It has been thrown from towers, buried in sand, put through cold temperature trials, and it is doing arctic trials with the Canadians of which reports are extremely successful. The arctic trials are not completed but the Canadians, who know something about Arctic conditions, have ordered 2,000 for troop trials. It has got an arctic trigger, and it has been through the whole of our cold temperature trials.
The rifle has come out of this with flying colours. That is the fact. If we have competitive trials all over again between the E.M.2 and the F.N., what will happen? People who love the E.M.2 are like Catholics against Protestants. They will never give up their belief in the E.M.2. We shall have terrible disagreements and waste more time, with the British Army, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston said, left on something of a limb as the last Army with a bolt-operated rifle.
I would say to the House that in my job as Secretary of State for War the one thing I want to do is to get into production on an automatic rifle. We are satisfied, and the experts are satisfied, that to buy 5,000 of these rifles for troop trials is now justified up to the hilt, and that is what we intend to do.
What I beg of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that if they feel that this rifle, as I have told them, is a reasonably adequate one, cannot we in the House tonight forgo a division? This rifle will be fired by the sons of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and the best send-off for any rifle is for the House to feel that it is a good one. I am absolutely convinced up to the hilt, and I have told the Prime Minister so, that this is a first-class rifle justified by expert opinion. People say that the rifle is the soldier's best friend. The best thing we can do in the House tonight is unanimously to commend a new friend to the British soldier.:

Mr. Strachey: Before the right hon. Gentleman finally resumes his seat, will he say whether he will or will not lay the signal about which he has spoken? He has told us he has given the substance of it, so there can be no security question.
We would like to see what the


document was, whom it was sent from, and to whom, and what its real purport was.

Mr. Head: As I have said, if the right hon. Gentleman is challenging my facts, I would certainly take up the question on the facts. What would be unwise would be for me now to undertake to give a signal the contents of which—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen do not like this at all. The point I am making is that I do not know whether or not that signal might have said something which could have been interpreted, say, as discourteous to the United States. I do not know. I cannot guarantee to publish it in full, but what I will do is either to publish it in full or establish up to the hilt the facts which I have given to the House.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: The Government published the telegrams sent from the Foreign Office to Washington in connection with the question of bombing over the Yalu River. If it was possible to lay those telegrams, why is it not possible to lay this one?

Mr. Shinwell: Before the right hon. Gentleman finally resumes his seat, may I put this to him: was it not in his opinion a trifle unfair not exactly to quote from a document but to convey the impression that he was quoting and, at any rate, to prejudice the case against this side of the House by speaking about this matter and declining to lay the document on the table? Was not that a little unfair? Would he not reconsider the matter? If not, I am afraid that we shall have to take this very much further.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Has he seen the document?

Mr. Shinwell: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman has seen the document himself. [Hon. Members: "No."] If he has not seen the document, that makes it very much worse. At any rate, will he not reconsider the matter and try to satisfy hon. Members about the contents of this document?

Mr. Head: I said that in answer to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as a Privy Councillor, should show to the other right hon. Gentlemen the terms of the signal in so far as it might be confidential and that he should publish that element of the signal which he himself has said he will publish?

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the Secretary of State's continued refusal to say whether he has seen the document or not, we on this side of the House are quite clear that he cannot have seen it. In those circumstances, does he think that he is living up to his responsibilities when he comes to the House with a quotation from some document which he has not seen, and when he does not know to whom it was sent or the circumstancesin which it was sent?

Mr. Head: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are making very heavy weather over this. What I said to the House—and I never said anything else—was that the policy decision was made in the War Office. A policy decision was made. I said that quite clearly. I never said anything about the Army Council, as hon. Gentlemen will see when they read the Official Report. I stated that a policy decision was made and the object was standardisation of the F.N. 280 inch as recommended by the Joint Report. I stated that as a decision of policy. If I am informed by the War Office that a policy decision was taken, why on earth do hon. Gentlemen think that either I or the War Office want to tell them the wrong thing? That is a factual statementon a policy decision which was made. Who made it I never stated. What I said was that I imagined that the right hon. Gentleman would know. I merely stated that it was a policy decision.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 266.

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[7.20 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Albu, A. H.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Parker, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hamilton, W. W.
Pearson, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, W.
Peart, T. F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hardy, E. A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Porter, G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hastings, S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baird, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Bartley, P.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Reeves, J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Beswick, F.
Holman, P.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Houghton, Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hoy, J. H.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Ross, William


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Bowden, H. W.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Short, E. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brock, Dryden (Halifax)
Janner, B.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Skeffington, A. M.


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Slater, J, (Durham, Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Carmichael, J.
Keenan, W.
Snow, J. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Kenyon, C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Champion, A. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Steele, T.


Chapman, W. D.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Clunie, J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Collick, P. H.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lewis, Arthur
Sylvester, G. O.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Crossman, R. H. S.
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Daines, P.
McInnes, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McLeavy, F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thornton, E.


Deer, G.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomney, F.


Delargy, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Donnelly, D. L.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Viant, S. P.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wallace, H. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mason, Roy
Warbey, W. N.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Watkins, T. E.


Edelman, M.
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, William (Walsall)


Fornyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Fienburgh, W.
Monslow, W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Finch, H. J.
Moody, A. S.
While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Follick, M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Foot, M. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)
Wigg, George


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mulley, F. W.
Willey, F. T.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Gooch, E. G.
O'Brien, T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Orbach, M.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oswald, T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, C. F.
Padley, W. E
Wyatt, W. L.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paget, R. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hale, Leslie
Pannell, Charles
Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.







NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Marples, A. E.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maude, Angus


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maudling, R.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Glover, D.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Godber, J. B.
Mellor, Sir John


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Molson, A. H. E.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Gower, H. R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Baker, P. A. D.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimond, J.
Neave, Airey


Banks, Col. C
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicholls, Harmar


Barber, Anthony
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Barlow, Sir John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Baxter, A. B.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Oakshott, H. D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hay, John
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Heath, Edward
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Birch, Nigel
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborne, C.


Bishop, F. P.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Page, R. G.


Black, C. W.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Perkins, Sir Robert


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bowen, E. R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, J. W. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holt, A. F.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Braine, B. R.
Hope, Lord John
Pitman, I. J.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Sir Gurney
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Horobin, I. M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Profumo, J. D.


Bullard, D. G.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Redmayne, M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hurd, A. R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A (Saffron Walden)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Carr, Robert
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Renton, D. L. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Channon, H.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Roberston, Sir David


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Russell, R. S.


Cole, Norman
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Colegate, W. A.
Kaberry, D.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Kerr, H. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr Albert
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, R. Donald


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lambton, Viscount
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leather, E. H. C.
Shepherd, William


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Crouch, R. F.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Snadden, W. McN.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Soames, Capt. C.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Longden, Gilbert
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Low, A. R. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stevens, G. P.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
McAdden, S. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Donner, Sir P. W.
McCallum, Major D.
Storey, S.


Doughty, C. J. A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Studholme, H. G.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McKibbin, A. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Erroll, F. J.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Teeling, W.


Fell, A.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Finlay, Graeme
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fisher, Nigel
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Foster, John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon







Turner, H. F. L.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Turton, R. H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Wills, G.


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Watkinson, H. A.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Vane, W. M. F.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Wood, Hon. R.


Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wellwood, W.



Vosper, D. F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walker-Smith, D. C.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.


Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Orders of the Day — HILL FARMING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.31 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The principal objects of this Bill are, first, to amend Section 10 of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, so as to permit grants to be made under that Act, as extended by the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951, for the erection, improvement or reconditioning of service cottages; and, second, to ensure that the consequences of a breach of the conditions imposed by regulations made under that Section are the same as those imposed in similar circumstances by the Housing Acts, 1952, I should like to emphasise the latter point, and say that the need for this Billis to bring the legislation affecting farm cottages under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts into line with existing housing legislation. That is the principal object of the Bill.
Before I deal with the separate Clauses of the Bill, it may be of some interest to the House if I give some information about the progress made with the improvement of our hill and livestock rearing farms under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. At 31st December, 1953, improvement schemes in the United Kingdom had been approved in respect of work estimated to cost just over £17¼ million. That amount is made up as follows: England and Wales, £12¼ million; Scotland, £4¾ million; and Northern Ireland, £250,000. In addition to this, schemes estimated to cost about £2¾ million have been approved in principle, and schemes under consideration are estimated to involve another £2¼ million.
The House will recollect that 50 per cent. grants are payable, so that, taking schemes finally approved or approved in principle, we are at present committed to

approximately £10 million or one half of the £20 million authorised in the Acts for schemes submitted within 10 years from the commencement of the 1946 Act; that is, until 6th November, 1956.
The figure of £17¼ million, to which I have referred, is made up as follows: Land improvement, £5·15 million; farm-steadings and equipment, £4·4 million; farmhouses, £2·2 million; fencing, £1·8 million; workers' cottages, £1·4 million; water and electricity supplies, £1·2 million; and roads and bridges, £1·1 million.
As this Bill deals specifically with workers' cottages, it may be appropriate to give the House the following figures relating to cottages. The estimated expenditure of about £1½ million on workers' cottages represents roughly 8 per cent. of the total estimated expenditure in the United Kingdom. The national figures work out at 4 per cent. for England and Wales, 18 per cent. for Scotland and 1 per cent. for Northern Ireland. The numbers of cottages affected, as at 31st December, 1953, were: England and Wales, 548; Scotland, 1,071; and Northern Ireland, 6;a total of 1,625. The figures I have given, of course, cover both new and reconditioned cottages.
The grants in respect of cottages are governed by regulations made by Ministers, and the House will recollect that theoriginal Act laid down, in Section 10 of the Hill Farming Act, that the regulations must include a condition prohibiting the occupation of the cottage otherwise than by the owner or a tenant, and the regulations cover a period of 20 years. The effect of this is that, if a grant is made for the erection or improvement of a cottage, that cottage must cease to be a service cottage, and the case may well arise where a farm worker takes another job but continues to live in the cottage, and the farmer is therefore unable to obtain another worker because he has no house to offer him.
It has been argued by various hon. Gentlemen opposite that, if a cottage protected under the Rent Restriction Acts


is necessary for a proper working of a farm, the farmer can expect to obtain vacant possession of it by court action. It is quite true that that is the method involved, but it gives rise to very considerable delay, possibly of several months, and anything up to four or five months is quite a common occurrence. Therefore, this is a serious matter for many of our farms, particularly hill farms, because that period may arise during the time of lambing or marking. At the same time, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree, during the passage of our housing legislation, particularly the Housing Act, 1952, the Government recognised that hardship may arise if the occupier of a service cottage is liable to immediate removal.
Therefore, in this Bill, we propose to do exactly what we did in the Housing Acts. Where a contract of service is brought to an end by the employer at less than four weeks' notice, or by the death of either party to the contract, the employee, or, in the case of his death, his dependants, should have the right to continue in occupation of the cottage free of charge to the end of a period of four weeks from the date on which notice was given or on the determination of the contract, as the case may be.
In this way, we shall bring the conditions for grants applied to houses under the Hill Farming Act and Livestock Rearing Act into line with those which apply and are working very successfully under the Housing Acts. Some smaller Amendments of the principal Act are also included in this Bill. I should like to refer briefly to the three Clauses in it.
Clause 1 (1) extends generally the effect of Section 10 of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, and the first part of this subsection amends that Section by the removal of the requirement that the regulations shall impose the condition that the cottage must be occupied by an owneror a tenant. The second part provides that the regulations shall contain a condition assuring the occupier of a service cottage, whose employment is terminated, a period of not less than four weeks before he has to leave the cottage. Subsection (3) provides that where there is a breach of the conditions laid down, the owner or other person from whom grant may be recoverable shall be given an opportunity, which is at present denied

him, of remedying the breach. Provision is also made for scaling down the amount recoverable according to the unexpired portion of the 20-year period applying to the cottage.
It may be that those conditions will affect only a small number of cases, but it is obviously desirable to afford an opportunity for a breach to be remedied, and it is equitable to take into account the length of time during which the conditions have been faithfully observed. Suppose that 10 years have gone; it is not reasonable to charge the man for the whole of the 20 years. We give him the benefit of half the period, during which he faithfully carried out his obligations, and he would have to repay the other half. That principle was approved by the House when it passed the Housing Act, 1952.
Subsection (4) deals with cases where the grant is paid to persons other than owners. Hon. Gentlemen will realise that hill farming improvement schemes can be put up by the owner, by the owner jointly with the tenant, or by the tenant himself. The subsection deals with cases where the grant is paid to the person other than the owner, for example the tenant, who accepts responsibility for carrying out improvements. It would not be reasonable in these cases to hold the owner liable, in the event of a breach, for a grant he has never received. Consequently, we propose to enable the Minister to recover grant from the person who actually received it.
Subsection (5) makes it possible to bring within the ambit of the regulations cottages already erected or improved by the aid of a grant. This is necessary, for reasons which will be given later, as a legal matter. The present occupants of grant-aided cottages sitting under tenancy agreements will not be affected by the new regulations, but when existing tenancies expire it will not be necessary to enter into new tenancy agreements. It will, however, be necessary to give effect to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3), which I have already explained.

Mr. George Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that sitting tenants under existing tenancies will not be affected. Is there anything in the Bill to prevent a landlord from terminating tenancies and then making service cottages of the premises?

Mr. Snadden: If a worker is in a cottage under a contract of tenancy, nothing in the Bill will affect him so long as the contract of tenancy exists. Should a worker go, or die, and the cottage becomes vacant, the owner is entitled under the Bill to treat that cottage as a service cottage; but he must observe the conditions I have mentioned in regard to the one month's notice.

Mr. Brown: Presumably also, with the encouragement given by the Bill and particularly by the back-dating provisions of the Bill, the landlord can terminate the existing tenancy contract and turn the cottage into a service cottage straight away. So the existing tenant is affected.

Mr. Snadden: He cannot do that so long as the existing tenancy is run under a contract of tenancy, because obviously that would be a breach of contract. Until that contract ceases, the conditions of the Bill will not apply to the tenant.
Clause 2 deals with the registration of the conditions applying to cottages under Section 10 of the 1946 Act, and Clause 3 gives the usual short title and citation, clause and provides that the Bill shall come into operation two months after the date on which it is passed. This will allow time for new regulations to be made and publicised in the usual way.
I have said that the object of the Bill is to bring legislation affecting farm cottages under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts into line with the Housing Acts of 1952, thereby removing the anomalous position that exists today, when we have two Acts of Parliament offering grants for reconditioning under different conditions. I accordingly commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Thomas Williams: Does not the hon. Gentleman regard it as anomalous that Parliament is making 50 per cent. improvement grants under the hill farming scheme while it does not offer a 50 per cent. grant for any other purpose?

Mr. Snadden: The answer would be that the cost of rebuilding a cottage on a hill farm away out on a glen is very much greater than elsewhere. Assistance under the Housing Acts for hill farming purposes would not cope with the existing position.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I should say at the outset that I have never heard the Second Reading of a Bill moved with such flimsy justification. What v/as the justification of the Under-secretary of State for this proposal to amend Section 10 of the 1946 Act? It was that a case may well arise that a worker will stay on in his cottage and keep a new worker out; "may arise," after the Act of 1946 has been in operation for just over seven years. The Under-secretary could not tell us that any case had arisen, not a single one. He said, "a case may well arise," and that under Section 10 court proceedings may be instituted, and may cause unnecessary delay. The hon. Gentleman was not able to say that court proceedings had caused unnecessary delay, inconvenience and embarrassment to hill farmers in a single case. Not a shred of evidence has been brought before us in support of the Bill.
The Under-Secretary started off his speech by saying that he would tell us something about what had been achieved under the 1946 Act and under the later Livestock Rearing Act. May I remind him of what he said on other occasions? He was telling us a few minutes ago how successful the Hill Farming Act of 1946 had been. What did he say in 1946? Let me remind him. He said:
If the…Clause"—
now Section 10, which is being amended—
is accepted, the main proposals in this Bill will be nullified."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9th July, 1946; col. 2220.]
Then we had the Summer Recess. We came back afterwards, and took the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. On the Third Reading, on 9th October, 1946, the Under-Secretary then said:
During the Recess I have toured a large number of the farms which will come under the Bill, and I have talked with the farmers. I have not met one who is prepared to take advantage of the Government's provisions in regard to housing. I am very much afraid that we may, as a result, have very few improvement schemes.
Then he went on to say, again referring to what is now Section 10:
It deals very nearly, if not completely, a fatal blow at an otherwise promising Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 270.]


This evening he has proved what a false prophet he was. He has told us of the great achievements under the Hill Farming Act. He gave us the number of schemes and the amount of money involved in the schemes that have been submitted and approved, and the proportion of the total cost accounted for by cottages. He said that the cottages accounted for 8 per cent. of the total cost of works approved under the hill farming or livestock rearing schemes. He said that so far as he could learn from speaking to hill farmers in his area, not one of them would build a cottage under the Act. He went on to tell us that in Scotland about 18 percent. of the money involved in these hill farming schemes was accounted for by cottages.

Major D. McCallum: 8 per cent.

Mr. Fraser: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would listen to his Minister, he would know that it was 18 per cent. in Scotland. Eight per cent. was for the United Kingdom.
For the whole time I was in office, cottages always represented the biggest single item under the scheme. I discovered, from figures given to me by the Minister after this miserable Bill had been published, that cottages came second on the list. Farm buildings came first. But the hon. Gentleman said that the farmers would not build cottages under the 1946 Act, and, furthermore, that we would not even get schemes because of this iniquitous provision for the untying of cottages which we had inserted in that Measure.
I repeat that I have never heard such flimsy justification of a Bill, and I cannot understand any Government or any Minister seeking at this time to amend legislation that has worked so well. They do it, of course, for no other reason than political prejudice, for doctrinaire reasons. They, of course, are having a hard time with the farmer of this country.
The farmers are very critical of the present Government because of their lack of policy. They have been saying that the Labour Government passed legislation that was showing good results, and although the farmers did not like the Labour Party, they liked its legislation. From the Government's point of

view, far too many farmers have recently been saying that the Labour Government were not so bad after all. Therefore, the Government have said, "Let us bring up this issue of the tied cottage in order to prove that we are on their side." That is all there is to it.
As I have already pointed out, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that not a single farmer in his area would build a cottage under the scheme. I cannot say how many farmers in his area have built cottages under the scheme, but there must be quite a number. He thought that farmers would not even submit schemes. I find from the document which the Under-Secretary gave me in December that, in the county of Perth which he represents, schemes amounting in all to £846,000 had been approved up to 30th November, 1953. He was the man who, when the Bill was going through, told us that it would not be operated, and that he had received an assurance from the farmers that they would have nothing to do with it.
I asked the Under-Secretary of State in September how many owners had found it necessary to break the conditions of tenancy and had, in consequence, to repay part of the grant. I thought that must surely be part of the Government's case. In Section 10 of the 1946 Act we provided that if a farmer wished to have a tied cottage on his hill farm, he could do so provided that he himself paid for the new building or for the improvement of the existing cottage. We said that inasmuch as the cottage was built or improved under a hill farming scheme it had to be untied, and that if, later on, the farmer wished to breach that condition, then he would have to repay the grant which he had received from Government funds
I thought when this Bill was published that there must have been some such cases, so on 25th November I wrote to the Joint Under-Secretary asking him the question. On 11th December he replied, saying:
We have not had any cases where the owners have broken tenancy conditions, and, consequently, there have been no cases where part of the grant has had to be repaid.
As far as I can see, there is no justification whatsoever for this Bill. The Government seem still to agree with the Labour Party that tenant farmers should have some security of tenure. The


National Farmers' Union think that the tenant farmer should have security of tenure. The security of tenure given to the shepherd under Section 10 of the 1946 Act was nothing like so good as the security of tenure given to the tenant farmer. But the Government are not proposing under this Bill to disturb the security of tenure provisions with regard to the tenant farmer. They are not attacking the farmer, but only the poor farm worker. Perhaps they think he is less able to defend himself. Perhaps the union of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) is not quite so strong as the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: We make a lot of noise when we want to.

Mr. Fraser: But my hon. Friend's union, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, has not the same influence with the Government as has the National Farmers' Union. The Government are not prepared to interfere with the tenancy provisions as regards the farmer, but any security which the poor farm worker may have has got to go.
There is not the slightest doubt that the effect of this Bill will give rise to conflict between farmers and farm workers where at the present moment there is none. It will disturb the harmony which has existed in this industry for some years. There has been no outcry about the unfairness of the 1946 Act. Some academic speeches have been made here and there, but there has been no evidence to prove that the Act has not worked well.
We shall certainly oppose this Bill, because we do not think that Parliament has any right to muck about with Acts of Parliament unless it can be shown that a certain piece of legislation is not working well. Only in those circumstances should a Government amend an Act. No such suggestion regarding the 1946 Act was made in the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary, because, of course, all the evidence is to the contrary.
I do not wish to get down to Committee points at this stage, but the Joint Under-Secretary did say that the existing tenant would be protected. Perhaps he will be able to prove that that will be the case, but, as I read Section 5 (1), I fear that the regulations which are now

to be made will have retrospective effect without any regard to who happens to be occupying the cottage at the present time.
We have often heard criticisms about retrospective legislation from hon. Members opposite. Here we have retrospective legislation going back to 1946 without a shred of evidence regarding the need for it. This is a wicked Bill, and we shall most certainly oppose it in the Division Lobby.

8.0 p.m.

Major D. McCallum: I represent aconstituency which has the biggest hill farming area in the United Kingdom, the greatest number of hill farms, and the greatest sheep population of any county. I must confess to being a little surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). He accuses the Government of retrospective legislation, but I cannot see in what respect it is retrospective. Payments will not be made for work already done, but only for schemes presented from the time this Bill becomes law.

Mr. T. Fraser: I did not think that I would have to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman some counsel in this matter, but surely he will agree that those hill farmers, so numerous in his constituency, did, in spite of what he has said, take advantage in 1946 of the grants under the Hill Farming Act and have improved cottages subject to their being untied, but are now being relieved of the conditions, under which they receive the grant in the first place, retrospectively to 1946.

Major McCallum: That is not retrospective at all. When the hon. Gentlemen opposite were in opposition there was some penalising retrospective financial legislation which was much to be deplored, but this is nothing of the sort.
The hon. Member says that an Act of Parliament should not be changed unless it is shown to be working badly. I remember that, on First Reading of the Hill Farming Bill in 1946, Clause 10 allowed for what is known as tied cottages, but only on Second Reading did the right hon. Gentleman opposite have second thoughts and amend the Clause to read that any grant would thereby untie the cottage. That was introduced between First and Second Readings of the Bill.
I welcome the Bill, because it takes the place of a Private Member's Bill which I attempted to introduce in 1950. At that time I had certain differences with hon. Members then sitting on this side because I referred, as they thought, in a derisory or contemptuous way to the large spate of propaganda launched at me by the Union of Agricultural Workers. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) will remember the occasion—when I had dozens of letters from the various branches of that union, all couched in the same terms.

Mr. Gooch: The hon. Member then threw down the protests of the Union of Agricultural Workers in disgust, did he not?

Major McCallum: I dropped them on the seat in front of me, but I did point out that no propaganda of that kind had come from any hill farming area—from the hill farmers, the shepherds or the workers on hill farms.

Mr. Gooch: Yes, there was. Was it not a fact that a protest was received by the hon. Member from the Scottish Farm Servants' Union—

Major McCallum: No, Sir.

Mr. Gooch: —the membership of which includes many workers on hill farms in Scotland?

Major McCallum: No. I will tell the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish branch of the Agricultural Workers' Union comprises workers mostly from the Borders or Lowlands, but hardly a single member—I doubt if any—from the Highland area. I do not think it holds sway there at all. Perhaps, when my hon. Friend replies, he will tell me if the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department for Scotland have been subjected to the same flood of threats and propaganda that I received at that time, because there is no doubt that this is merely an amending Bill to bring the housing question here, and the housing regulations in regard to the ordinary building of cottages into line with the 1952 Housing Act of this Government.
When I tried to introduce my Bill, the hon. Member for Hamilton, speaking for the Government of the day, pointed out to me, as he has done today, that 17·8

per cent., in money value, of the improvement schemes for hill farming in Scotland was for cottages. That was in 1950, but the hon. Member today tells us that the amount is still only 18 per cent.

Mr. T. Fraser: Only?

Major McCallum: Only 18 per cent., so there has not been that great improvement or addition under the Act which the hon. Gentleman seemed to say was working so wonderfully.
Again, when introducing my Bill in 1950, I pointed out that the certificate procedure for evicting a man from a cottage was hardly known—certainly not in my own constituency. The hon. Gentleman in his reply, which I have here in Hansard, pointed out that there had been 1,000 applicants for certificates, yet he tells us today that there was no such thing as anybody being discontented with the conditions of the Act
I challenged him again, in regard to my own constituency, that, in three years, only seven of the total number of applications for certificates had been made in Argyllshire of which, he admitted, only two were in respect of hill farms. There is no doubt that the necessity for applying for certificates was abnoxious to all hill farmers, especially when it came to obtaining possession of a cottage in order to house another shepherd.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman tell us that the farmers of Argyllshire find it less obnoxious to turn a shepherd into the street than to go to the sheriff for a certificate?

Major McCallum: I was pointing out that there was no case in Argyllshire of shepherds being turned out by farmers. I was talking at the time about hill farmers, but the hon. Gentleman took me up about farmers as a whole and I questioned him again on that. He said then that out of the total number of hill farmers in my constituency only two had applied for certificates. The point is that in hill farming it is almost unknown; there were, in fact, only two cases—in one of the largest areas—of a hill farmer wishing to put out any man.

Mr. T. Fraser: Then what is the Bill for?

Major McCallum: Because times have changed. In the hill farming areas there


is greater development of forestry and of hydro-electrical schemes, all of which tend to attract labour from the hill farms, and it is possible—as I pointed out to him at that time—that those people could stay on in their cottages while working for these schemes in the hill farming areas, and so prevent the farmer from having the cottage for the new shepherd or worker. That was why I made my effort at that time. I welcome this Bill for that very reason. It brings this matter into the housing policy of the Government and does save local authorities to a certain extent, as I will try to explain.

Mr. Fraser: But you have not a single case.

Major McCallum: I am just trying to explain some cases which I want to put forward.
There were, in my constituency, certain farmers who, finding it necessary to build or modernise cottages, have done so with the assistance of the 1952 housing improvement scheme of this Government, but could not do it under the Hill Farming Act. Instead of the grant being paid by the central Government, under the 1952 Act it will be paid by the local authority. Therefore, the introduction of the Bill will bring the hill farming community into line and will enable these schemes to go forward and even more schemes, I am convinced, to be presented when it is known that assistance can be given under the Hill Farming Act. It is for that reason that I very much welcome the Bill.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: I do not think any Member can accuse me, during nearly nine years' membership of the House, of trying to do other than my best in the interests of farming. Furthermore, I have not always made it a party matter. I hope that I have an opinion of my own, and I express it from time to time. In the main, I loyally supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) when he was Minister, but there were occasions even then when I felt constrained to point out to him what I regarded as the error of his ways. So far as the present Government are concerned, I have on occasion ventured to praise the Minister, but I regret to say that lately he has blotted his copybook.

On the top of all the ill-conceived schemes of the Government we have this Hill Farming Bill, which seems to have arrived from Scotland. I do not mind Scotsmen coming to England—I welcome them—but I wish that they would leave Bills of this kind behind. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has said about the Bill. It is a miserable little Bill, vicious in make-up and harmful in effect. I have said repeatedly that agricultural tied cottages are an abomination to the tenants. They are anti-social and, above everything else, they take away a man's liberty.
The Bill not only envisages the erection of more tied cottages and the improvement of those that exist, but it goes so far as to provide State grants to enable such a project to be carried into effect. In other words, it will compel a tied cottage tenant to contribute through State funds towards the improvement of his cottage, from which he can still be evicted without court order and without alternative accommodation being made available.
I readily agree that summary eviction will not be possible under the Bill as it is possible in the case of many thousands of tied cottages today. If he cannot find another cottage, a tenant under notice from his job is to be allowed to stay in the cottage for four weeks. That is certainly a step in advance. At the end of the four weeks, however, he has no protection under the Rent Restriction Acts, and he can be evicted at the end of that period by the farmer without resort to law.
By allowing four weeks' grace, as the Bill does, the Government and hon. Members on the other side of the House, who have always taken the line that a tied cottage tenant has no grievance and that summary eviction was a myth, now admit by the Clause that a tenant is at least worthy of a limited amount of protection. We have various forms of security of tenure, and I only want to add my word to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton in regard to the security of tenure that the Labour Government gave to the efficient tenant farmer.
I did not demur when that Measure was brought forward. I voted for it gladly. It is today the most difficult job in the world, as every estate and farm


owner knows, to get an efficient tenant farmer out of his farm. While I welcome this and I hope it will continue for a long time, I believe there are moves afoot to try to stop it. At the same time, this vicious Bill is introduced that denies to an efficient farm worker the same measure of protection that we all agree should be, and is being, given to the efficient tenant farmer.
It is not always that a man who lives in a tied cottage gets notice because his work is bad. Often he gets notice because he has a row with his employer, and when he gets notice to leave his job for that reason it means that he has to go out of the cottage. I regret that the Labour Government did not go a little further and seek to solve for all time the question of tied cottages and deal with the problem as itexisted. But if the Labour Government did not abolish the system of tied cottages on farms, at least they went all the way towards preventing fresh tied cottages from being created. To that extent the Labour Government did right.
The Bill proposes to repeal the Section of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, which prevents any grant-aided cottage from being occupied under a contract of service by a person who is not a tenant. Under the 1946 Act, grants towards the building or improvement of cottages may be given only when the cottages are for occupation by a tenant. This was a limited measure of giving satisfaction to tied cottage tenants. A tenant, in this connection, does not necessarily mean a tenant having the full protection of the Rent Acts. In practically all cases it means a person occupying the cottage under what is called a restricted tenancy—that is, a tenancy which may be determined without alternative accommodation being proven.
I am glad that light is at last shining upon hon. and right hon. Members opposite in regard to the question of tied cottages. We have in the Bill a provision that a man who has to leave his cottage shall be allowed four weeks' grace, but when the four weeks is up that tied cottage tenant has not the slightest protection of law if he occupies a service cottage. The Bill is a United Kingdom Measure, but it is being piloted through the House by the Secretary of

State for Scotland because proportionately, I gather, Scotland has made greatest use of the provision which allows grants for the building or improvement of cottages under comprehensive farm schemes.
The hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) referred to what happened when he tried to incorporate in a Private Member's Bill the very principle now being incorporated in the Bill today. There was a debate in the House on the Second Reading of the Hill Farming Bill in June, 1946, and another on the Bill, as amended in Standing Committee, on 9th October, 1946. I took part in the debate and I tried to state clearly my objections to tied cottages where no tenancy existed. It was a very interesting debate which took place on that Private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll. It had as its object the amending of the Hill Farming Act, 1946. All I want to say in this connection is that I had the pleasure of talking out that Bill. I cannot do that with this Bill. I wish I could. I would talk for a long time if that were possible, but it cannot be done tonight. Later on I hope to go into the Division Lobby to express in the strongest possible manner my objection to the principle enshrined in this Bill.
My own organisation, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, objects to the granting of public money for building or reconditioning cottages outside the scope of the Rent Acts, and their opposition is not lessened by the fact that occupants must be given four weeks' notice before the owner takes the cottage, but at the expiration of that period the tenant can be ejected from the cottage without recourse to an order from the court.
All the way along the limited protection to tied cottage tenants which in the last few years we in the Labour Party have been able to give has been resented by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They resisted the Hill Farming Act, 1946, they approved the abortive attempt made by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll, and they resisted the provisions of the Livestock Rearing Act when it was introduced by the Labour Government. In this connection, when the Bill was considered in Committee the present Minister of Agriculture—I am sorry he is


not in his place at the moment—moved an Amendment to enable farmers to obtain grants for building or reconditioning cottages let on a service occupancy where no tenancy existed. At that time my organisation was constrained to make a few remarks about the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and as they are relevant to the matter now under discussion I will read them now to the House:
There was nothing original in the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. They have been pulverised many times. He even repeated the arrant nonsense about the Prime Minister living in a tied house. Any man who sees some parallel between the Prime Minister leaving his official residence and a farm worker being thrown out of a farm tied cottage is incredibly stupid.
I am quoting, and I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I did not write this. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] I might have written something worse, but I am only explaining here that I am not the father of this child. It goes on:
The right hon. Gentleman said in effect that unless farmers were allowed summarily to eject their workers they would refuse to repair or recondition their dilapidated cottages even with the aid of public money"—
that, of course, proved to be wrong—
and that therefore the Labour Government was condemning farm workers to bad housing conditions. If farmers are taking up this mean and shabby attitude they should be compelled to put their property in order.
Hon. Members opposite want more tied cottages and they want the State to pay for them. I think I would be wanting in my duty to those men who place their trust in me if I did not condemn the tactics of the Government in this present Bill. That I do with the utmost of my strength, and I will go into the Division Lobby against the Bill's Second Reading.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I welcome the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), for I well remember the tussles we had when the Hill Farming Bill, 1946, was going through Standing Committee. I can also appreciate that he sometimes had differences of opinion with his right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). In fact, this little Bill that is now before the House is putting back into the 1946 Act what the right hon. Gentleman wanted to leave in the Act, but pressure from his hon. Friends

forced him to insert a new Clause in the Bill in Standing Committee.
I am sorry that this tied cottage bogey has been brought up again, and I am going to ask the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, before the Committee stage of this Bill, to give me instances of these summary evictions because workers have had rows with their bosses. If he can give me any of these examples from his or adjoining constituencies, I will investigate them, and I will debunk some of the nonsense that is talked about the men in tied cottages.

Mr. T. Williams: Has the hon. Gentleman not seen the case in Nottinghamshire where the rural district council was willing to grant a house to a person who was about to be evicted if the farmer held his hand for a few weeks, but the farmer did not hold his hand, although the rural council did its best to dissuade him, and the tenant and his goods were set on the street?

Mr. Baldwin: I have not seen that case, and if it is a fact, I do not support such action one little bit. I appreciate that there are one or two instances where hardship has occurred, but if we object to this Bill because we want to prevent hardship in one or two cases, we are going to create hardships for hundreds or even thousands of labourers in cottages who will not get their houses improved unless they are tied. If the hon. Member is right that at the end of four weeks a farmer can go to a tenant and summarily evict him, then I am quite prepared to support an Amendment in Committee if he will bring it forward. I have no sympathy for actions of that sort, and I have never yet come across such instances.
Hon. Members will remember that in the Standing Committee on the Hill Farming Bill, Mr. Alpass, the then Member for Thornbury, was a bitter opponent of the tied cottage. After the Bill I challenged him to debate the subject of tied cottages anywhere he liked to name. He chose Thornbury, a town in the centre of his own constituency and we went there one evening. Before the debate took place, I said to him, "Shall we get anybody at our meeting?" He said, "Yes, there will be a packed hall. Mr. Dann, the secretary of the N.U.A.W. has circularised the farm workers in this area and


they will all be there. "Well, we had a full and friendly meeting. A division was taken at the end for or against the tied cottage and the vote went in my favour.

Mr. Gooch: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to remind him that we both appeared over the radio one evening in a certain city and discussed the question of the tied cottage. I am not prepared to admit that he got away with it that time.

Mr. Baldwin: Then all I can say is that it is a pity the hon. Gentleman did not go down on the other occasion to help Mr. Alpass. Between them they might have won the trick.
I think it a pity that objection should be taken to this Bill. I am speaking more from the point of view of the improvement of cottages of which I have had a fair amount of experience. During my time as agent and farmer I have improved 12 cottages under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. The only condition under which we did that work was that if we sold the cottages within 20 years we had to refund any portion of the grant which we had been given. The rent was restricted to 6s. a week or such rate of rent as was common at that time.
Most of the tenants are still living in those cottages in comfort, not in fear. In not one instance has a man been turned out or summarily evicted, and any change made has been mutual. Therefore, it is quite wrong to raise this bogey of hardship. It may be good political stuff but it is not good for the farming industry. I want to see this Bill passed, and then I want to see the owners of cottages bringing them into such a state of good repair as will enable the workers and their wives to live in comfort.

Mr. Gooch: There is nothing to stop them now.

Mr. Baldwin: If we do not do something of this kind, there will be a still bigger drift from the land than there is at present. [Hon. Members: "Nonsense."] The only way to stop that is to make the house a decent place for the wife to live in. After all, it is the woman, generally speaking, who decides whether her man shall take a certain job. Rightly so, because a man does not want to come

home tired from his work to meet complaints. So, unless we have decent cottages to offer, the wives will not let their men go to remote districts—

Mr. T. Williams: At any rate they will not be going there to be turned out.

Mr. Baldwin: Can the right hon. Gentleman find me a tied cottage which is empty today? The time will come when the council houses are over-built, and I will make a bet with him that our tied cottages will be occupied and the council houses will be empty, because we have men living in tied cottages and paying a rent of 6s. a week while their pals living in council houses are paying 25s. a week. I have never seen any fear in the faces of men living in tied cottages.
However, I can give instances of hardship in another connection. In one case a farmer gave notice to the owner that he would give up his farm on 29th September and he also gave notice to the service tenants of two of his houses to give them up on 25th September. They are still in those cottages today. Who is suffering hardship because for 12 months those men have not found other accommodation? There are two cases of hardship involved there. One is the owner of the farm, a widow, who, because she cannot give possession of those two cottages to the man who bought the farm cannot get what the man has promised to pay, so she has lost the interest on £8,000 or £9,000 for eight months. The other hardship is caused to two men who want to get into those cottages to work on the farm and who have to cycle many miles night and morning to get to their job. Therefore, do not let it be said that all the hardship is on the poor chaps who are summarily evicted. In the few cases of evictions I have come across it has been because the man has been a thoroughly bad workman whom nobody wanted to employ. So if a man living in a tied cottage wants to feel safe, let him do a better job of work if he wants to remain there.
I dare say there will be more said in Standing Committee, and I hope that those who make such a fuss about hardship will give instances then of the hardships that have arisen within the last 12 months. When I challenged the hon. Member for Norfolk, North on a previous


occasion, he produced eight cases of hardship, some of which went back seven or eight years. Those were all the cases he could find spread out over Great Britain.

Mr. Gooch: Mr. Gooch indicated dissent.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Member shakes his head. I ask him to let us have some more reasonable evidence. I have not had time to look up the debate, but I will do so before the Committee stage. I ask the hon. Member to bring his cases to that Committee.

Mr. Gooch: Is the hon. Member saying that I did not produce any?

Mr. Baldwin: No. I said that the hon. Member produced seven or eight cases, of which I thought two were cases of summary evictions, and that the cases were spread over a period of seven or eight years. If those are all the incidents that have taken place over the whole of Great Britain, I do not understand this synthetic fury in attempting to defeat the Government on this Bill. I welcome the Bill. It will be a great help to the workers and to the farming industry generally.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Percy Wells: I had not intended to intervene in this debate after hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), who covered the position from the point of view of the agricultural workers exceedingly well. I changed my mind about intervening when I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin).
I am not prepared to state that the majority of farmers are guilty of the action, in which undoubtedly some of them indulge, of evicting agricultural workers summarily from agricultural tied cottages without just cause. The hon. Member for Leominster, however, threw some doubt on the possibility of that happening at all. I want to speak from my own knowledge.
I have been connected with the agricultural industry for over 25 years, having represented the agricultural workers in Kent on the County Agricultural Executive Committee and being at present a member of the Central Agricultural Wages Board. I want to refer to two

cases that have occurred in my constituency since I have been a Member of Parliament. In neither case was there a just cause for the action taken. I will willingly give the hon. Member for Leominster particulars of the cases if he desires them.
In the first case, the wife of a farm worker came to me at one of my "surgeries," bringing her daughter with her. Both were in tears. The woman informed me that her husband had died a week previously after serving for many years on a certain farm. While his body actually lay in the home, she was served with a notice to quit her cottage. It is perfectly true that when I got in touch with the farmer concerned he offered an alternative cottage, but it was one which had not been occupied for many years and had been condemned. There is one such case where, after a worker had given many years of satisfactory service—he was not dismissed, he died—his wife was treated in that way.
The other case that I recall is one where an agricultural worker desired to better himself and he applied to his employer for a reference. He wanted to apply for a job as a stockman, and, as he had a perfect right to do, he asked his employer for a reference. Not only was the reference refused but he was given notice immediately to leave his job and get out of the cottage. Those are two cases which I took up on behalf of constituents. I stall be pleased to give information on them to the hon. Member for Leominster in order that he can make the necessary inquiries into them.

Mr. Baldwin: I say at once that no hon. Member on this side of the House would support actions of the sort quoted by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells). But we must remember that those are isolated cases and, in order to put those few isolated cases right, it is proposed to inflict hardship on thousands in tied cottages all over the country.

Mr. Wells: I readily agree that the majority of farmers would not take action of that kind. In justice, I will quote another case that has come to my notice within the past few weeks. It was of a widow of an agricultural worker who asked me whether I could assist her to set a council house as the farmer in whose


cottage she was residing was now pressing her to get out of it because he required it for another worker. On going into the case, I found that her husband had died two years ago but the farmer had allowed her to remain in the cottage rent free all that period. It was only when one of his workmen was getting married and insisted on having a cottage that he applied pressure.
I am not one who thinks it possible to score a point by saying that all, or even the majority, of farmers are prepared to use unjustly this power which a tied cottage gives them. But the fact is that the power is there. I have known cases where a farmer who for many years worked with his employees has died and the son has taken over. Very often the son has not been so considerate as—to use farm workers' language— "the Guvnor," and injustice has been inflicted. It is the fact that the power is there which the agricultural worker very much fears. They never know when the power will be used. It can be used, as many instances can be advanced to prove, unfairly.
We say it is a great pity that the Minister has thought fit to undo something which we thought was bringing a little confidence to the agricultural workers of this country. We really felt we were at last showing agricultural workers that the perpetuation of tied cottages was not a policy which would be pursued in future in this country. Unfortunately, the position with which we are now faced reverses what we looked upon as a small measure of progress in that direction.
For that reason, I am prepared to go into the Lobby against this Bill. I am not much influenced by the argument used by hon. Members opposite that by opposing this Bill we shall be delaying the improvement of agricultural cottages. From time to time I have opposed my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), but by this Measure farmers are going to benefit in two ways. First, they are to get a grant to improve their cottages. When they have improved their cottages, they will go to the county wages committee and ask for an increase in rent. If the cottage is in a condition that warrants it, they will get the maximum rent of 10s. a week.

Mr. Gooch: That is being done now.

Mr. Wells: It is being done now. Farmers are getting it in two directions, while the agricultural worker is getting it in the neck.
We shall go into the Division Lobby against this Bill. I hope we shall have some support from hon. Members opposite, who are so concerned about farmers. I saw the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) look in a little time ago. He is very much concerned about farmers only having a year under supervision, and then, if they do not pull up their socks, being dispossessed of their farm. It would be much more to his credit had he been in the Chamber tonight supporting those of us who are opposing the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: This is a Hill Farming Bill, and although I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) speaking about his constituents, I have yet to learn that any of his constituents come under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. G. Brown: His constituents pay the subsidy.

Mr. P. Wells: The hon. and gallant Member would agree that the principle of the tied cottage applies to constituents of mine.

Captain Duncan: That is the next point to which I was coming.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and other hon. Members have made a great fuss about the principle of the Bill. The principle was dealt with, so far as Scotland is concerned, in 1952. I was in the House then, although I was not in 1946. Let me give a quotation from the speech of Mr. Wheatley, as I think I have a right to call him today:
This is a very serious matter. It involves a matter of principle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 334.]
It was a matter of principle then, which we fought out. The Government won the battle of principle in relation to the position dealt with in 1952, and it really should not arise again on this very limited question of a Hill Farming Bill.
The rest of the agricultural industry has been operating this principle for 18 months or so. Hon. Gentlemen may try to make out, as some have done, that it


is not speeding the reconditioning and improvement of cottages and the erection of modern cottages for farm workers, but if one goes round the county of Angus today it is astonishing to see the enormous amount of renovation and modernisation going on to farm cottages as a result of grants under the 1952 Act. If one goes along any road in the county of Angus on almost every farm something is being done to one of the cottages.

Mr. Gooch: With public money.

Captain Duncan: With grants from public money. I am not complaining of that.

Mr. Gooch: But we are.

Captain Duncan: Parliament provided for it in 1938 and in 1946, and has done so under the Livestock Rearing Act, and the Housing Act, 1952. It is astonishing to see the amount of work now being done. Some of that work, I have learned from conversations with farmers and farmworkers, was held up until that provision under the 1952 Act.
I am quite prepared to admit that there was another reason for the holding up of that work—the difficulty of getting licences. There was also the restriction on the amount which could be spent. It was about £600 under the Labour Government. We, under the 1952 Act, raised the figure to £800. Now the limit has gone altogether.
The point with which we are concerned on this Bill is a very much more limited one. Who will it affect? It will not affect the ordinary agricultural worker, only the agricultural worker on the hill farm—shepherds, grieves and people like that. Hon. Gentlemen have been talking about the evils of the tied cottage. The nearest analogy is that of the accommodation for forestry workers. They are all tied houses. When he was Minister of Agriculture the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was responsible for building cottages for forestry workers which were all tied, and still remain so. No one has complained to me that that was not just. It is necessary to have tied cottages in these far distant parts if a farm is to be worked properly. A shepherd may have miles to traverse and it is not possible, as was once advocated by the Socialist Party—I do not know

whether they still advocate it—to build groups of houses down in the valley, with men cycling to their work.

Mr. T. Eraser: When did that happen?

Captain Duncan: In 1952. If the hon. Gentleman wants the quotation, he should look at the speech made by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) in October, 1952—

Mr. Fraser: For shepherds?

Captain Duncan: Yes, for shepherds. The right hon. Gentleman said:
We recognise that it may be convenient for the workers to live very near lo the stock and that that is a plausible case for the perpetuation of a situation in which houses are segregated from villages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 400.]
It is impossible to build shepherds' cottages in villages in these isolated areas. They must be built up on the bills. Every man counts on these farms. There is not a lot of labour which can be switched around. If something happens to a ewe during the lambing season it may not only be a serious matter to the farmer's income, but it may lead to the death of the ewe. The shepherd must be on the job night and day during the lambing season.
Although it is a small Measure, this Bill would appear to me to raise no new principle at all. It does what is necessary in order to complete the hill farming picture. It will encourage many owners to modernise cottages and to encourage shepherds and their wives by giving them decent living conditions. I wish therefore to support the Bill, because I think it will do good in the isolated communities on the hill side in the crofting counties in the north of Scotland and the Scottish Islands. [Interruption.] I am trying to confine my remarks to the hill farming areas, unlike the hon. Member for Faversham. The hon. Member for Hamilton, who keeps murmuring from the Front Bench opposite—

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give way?

Captain Duncan: —said this will lead to a conflict between employer and employee. I do not believe this Bill will make the slightest difference to the relationship between master and man if


the man is a good worker and the master a decent person, there will be no difficulty at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said, the only case where difficulty will arise will be where there is a bad workman—

Mr. Fraser: Or a bad master.

Captain Duncan: —and there are few such cases in the Highlands of Scotland.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: I have not previously intervened in an agricultural debate. I cannot claim that in my constituency there is a large population of hill farmers. Probably there are not quite as many as there are in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan). Nevertheless, mine is an agricultural constituency. The Lothians are among the best agricultural land in Great Britain and, indeed, the world. Therefore, I make no apology for intervening.

I should not have intervened had it not been for the astonishing speech of the hon. and gallant Member. He attempted to persuade us that there was a fair and accurate analogy between cottages built by the Forestry Commission in isolated places for its workers and cottages owned by private farmers or tenant farmers for their shepherds. There is no analogy whatever. In Scotland the Forestry Commission builds cottages at the expense of the State for the occupation of forestry workers who otherwise would not be housed. The cottages are built entirely at the expense of the State for the benefit of the whole nation. They are owned by the State. How could they be tied otherwise? To whom could they be untied, unless the workers themselves desire to purchase them? No doubt the State makes arrangements for that to be done.
The hon. and gallant Member, with others, seemed to be doing farmers a scant service when he said that since the previous Act in 1952 there had been a great resurgence in building. So did the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) when he stated that unless we approved this Measure we were condemning agricultural workers to live in insanitary and bad housing conditions.

That seemed to be a reflection upon the humanity of the farmers and certainly upon their business acumen.
I was astonished to hear that there has been this terrific amount of bad housing in the countryside by landlords and tenant farmers. I did not know that it existed to that extent. The purpose of this narrow Bill is to ensure that if public money is spent on the improvement of houses by the State, then the houses shall be available for tenancy by anybody in the State who happens to be in the district and requires a house. The Bill is niggling and unnecessary. We ought to vote against it. I shall have pleasure in going into the Lobby to vote against the Motion.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor), whose voice we welcome in these debates, as someone whom we rarely hear from nowadays, spoke about the use of public funds for the purpose of hill farming. There is a risk that, without the Bill, these funds may not be used for the purpose for which they were intended. As the law stands, it is possible for somebody to leave his occupation and cease to be a shepherd and take up some other occupation—

Mr. Gooch: The hon. Gentleman knows that in a case like that the farmer can go to the county agricultural committee and get a certificate. He can take the man to court and get him evicted by-means of the certificate.

Mr. Macpherson: That may be so, but there is a delay, and that was the point I was about to make. Of course, I realise that, but the fact is that a man may change his occupation and remain in occupation of his house, at any rate for a limited time.

Mr. Gooch: Not very long.

Mr. Macpherson: For a limited time. The process of the law does not work all that quickly. Surely that is a misuse of public funds. It means that public funds must be used at least for a limited time, for the provision of accommodation in a place where it would not have been provided in normal circumstances. The money is provided purely and simply for hill farming and for nothing else.


If a man changes his occupation, for a period it does represent a misuse of public funds. Moreover, it is not easy to get a replacement at outlying farms. The man who has changed his occupation may remain in the house for a considerable time, and that may hinder the best use of the land.
One of the main purposes of the Labour Party, as well as the party on this side, is to ensure the best use of the land and of agricultural capital, so that when a farmer puts money into the construction or improvement of a house for a shepherd he can be certain that it will be used for a shepherd and not for someone in another occupation.

Mr. T. Fraser: This is a very nice theory, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has a single case of a farmer in Dumfriesshire suffering this embarrassment or not building a cottage as part of a hill farming scheme because of the conditions under Section 10. I have travelled very much in the hon. Member's constituency, as well as elsewhere in rural Scotland, and I have met no such case. All we ask is that we be given some evidence.

Mr. Macpherson: It is very difficult indeed to get negative information of that kind.

Mr. Fraser: It is positive information.

Mr. Macpherson: No, it is negative information. The hon. Member is asking for instances of farmers who have refrained from reconditioning cottages because they would be untied. Farmers whom I have met have constantly assured me that it is a handicap and a factor which weighs in their minds, as it is bound to be. Why should they put money into the building of a house or the improvement of a house when they cannot be certain that it will be used for the purpose to which they are devoting their money?
I agree that some are doing it, but the percentage for the whole country is only 8 per cent., that for England being only 4 per cent., although in Scotland the percentage is 18 per cent. I cannot say how many more might have done this, because there are no statistics for people who have not made application, but I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I am constantly told that agreat deal more

impetus would be given to the reconditioning of cottages and the building of new ones if the condition were altered. The Bill alters the condition. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating of it. We shall see whether in the future there is an increase in the reconditioning of houses in England and Wales and in Scotland. I hope it will be so.
There is, of course, the human appeal in respect of cases in the past where there may have been quarrels between masters and men, and men have been put into the street. We recognise that, but we face the Bill as it is with the changed conditions of today. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) who initiated the Clause providing for four weeks' notice. We welcome it, believing that it will improve human relationships between master and man.
Hon. Members opposite, including the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) have said that this is a limitation of liberty. If it is, it is a very widespread one, for it is generally accepted in many walks of life, whether it be in the case of the schoolmaster's house, a manse, the Forestry Commission's houses, houses built by the Scottish Special Housing Association specifically for miners, who lose the houses if they cease to be coal-miners, or the houses built by county councils for agricultural workers, who, if they cease to be agricultural workers, and there is a demand for those houses, are obliged to leave them.
What has to be recognised is that in farming there is a well-recognised discipline of the job, a discipline which farm workers not only recognise themselves but of which they are also proud. They realise that it is essential that there shall be somebody to tend the flock, and they realise very well that it is not easy to get a replacement for a shepherd who is going out, even at a month's notice, unless he is to tend the flock in the meantime until the day he goes. Both sides recognise that that is necessary.
Therefore, this Bill is only doing something which is entirely consistent with the discipline of the job. It is essential to have on a hill farm somebody who is able to look after the primary purposes of that job—for a shepherd to be there at hand all the time. It is very easy for


shepherds to get jobs elsewhere, and skilled shepherds are very definitely in short supply. If a shepherd is dissastisfied with his job, he can easily change, and it may be very difficult to replace him, but, if he leaves because his house is in bad repair, then it will be even more difficult to replace him, and we in this House ought not to do anything which will make it more difficult to keep shepherds on the land.
This small Measure, which will encourage farmers to put their capital into the improvement of farm cottages and the building of new shepherds' cottages, is, I believe, a wise step. I think it is a necessary step, and one that is entirely consistent with the discipline of the job.

9.8 p.m.

Brigadier F. Medlicott: I am glad to have the opportunity of intervening in this debate, although the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) has already spoken, and it might be thought unexpected that two hon. Members for the County of Norfolk should speak on a Hill Farming Bill. There is a widespread misconception as to the nature of the County of Norfolk. It is thought that we have no hills, but in fact we have hills and they are very beautiful, although I believe that very few of the Norfolk farmers would qualify technically for grants under the Hill Farming Acts.

I particularly want to refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) when he referred to this Bill having been introduced on the basis of party prejudice. I cannot think of anything more inaccurate. Our relationships with the farmers at the moment are a great deal better than they were. Indeed, at this moment, I should myself be enjoying the hospitality of one of the largest branches of the National Farmers' Union in Norfolk but for the fact that this Bill is being taken today.

Mr. Gooch: And me.

Brigadier Medlicott: It was not made quite clear to me whether I was to be on the toast list to be praised or on the menu to be eaten, but I hope I am right in assuming that it was the former. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North was also to have been there, but I suggest it was out of the farmers' personal regard

for him, and not on account of his political views, that he was invited.
If there is any political prejudice, it is in the opposition to the Bill. The object of the Bill is to effect improvements in the conditions of service cottages. The occupant of such a cottage is more interested in that than in any political theory. He is interested in whether his roof is to remain wind and water tight and whether the cottage can be made a better and more comfortable place to live in.
I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken with such feeling in regard to the tied cottage that, to use a legal phrase, they are estopped by their past record from working up any emotion about this matter. They were in power for six years, and the question of the tied cottage was brought to the notice of the Labour Government time and time again by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North. The remarkable thing is that to abolish the tied cottage would have been one of the simplest steps to take: a single Clause in a very short Bill, in the first few weeks of the period of office of the late Government was all that was required. They failed to do anything for six years, and because of that it is not now open to them to work up all this synthetic emotion about the tied cottage.
The hon. Member for West Lothian made an extraordinary remark when he said that if public money is expended for their improvement the cottages should be available for any member of the community. Anybody with knowledge of the agricultural community knows that the service cottage is part of the mechanism of the agricultural industry and, as the Labour Government found, to take it away would result in interference with food production and cause chaos in many aspects of country life.
The object of the Bill is to enable improvements to be made in the service cottages occupied by agricultural workers. I believe it will achieve that object and will bring these grant-aided cottages under the Hill Farming Act into line with other grant-aided cottages. Under the Housing Acts we extended the period of notice for grant-aided cottages from one week to one month. I have a personal hope that the day will come when no one can be discharged from his employment in any walk of life without at


least one month's notice. In a small way we have tried to put that into effect in the Housing Acts and in this Measure. It means that there is now four times as much opportunity and time for occupants of agricultural cottages to find other accommodation.
Although this is a modest improvement, it is definitely a step in the right direction. The Bill is a part of our plan to enable farmers to provide better accommodation for their workers. Because of that it will primarily help the workers, and I therefore give it my unqualified support.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: The last phrase of the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) just about epitomises the complete confusion among hon. Members opposite. He welcomes this Bill because it makes a contribution towards providing better cottages in the interest of the workers. It does absolutely nothing of the kind. It does not make a single penny piece available; it does not make a single brick or a piece of cement or plaster available. It does absolutely nothing, except make it easier to turn workers or the dependents of deceased workers out of their homes. An hon. and gallant Member who can convince himself that the Bill is in the interest of the workers, and who. therefore, can get up in this House and welcome it, had better give up dining with the National Farmers' Union and, instead, go and eat with his own workers or with his constituents. He is mixing with the wrong people, and getting muddled up.
In my view, this is a dirty little Bill. The other day we heard from the Minister of Agriculture about what I described as a "rag bag" of a Bill. A lot of odds and ends that did not matter had all been tied up together to make a piece of legislation. This is a miserable, mean, nasty little Bill. When I saw the Minister of Agriculture sitting on the Government Front Bench, almost larger than life, and beside him, until a short while ago, the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom we are always delighted to see, and then realised that the two Joint Under-Secretaries were going to deal with this Bill despite the presence of the Ministers, I knew that it was a piece of dirty business.
As I have said many times before, all Members and ex-Members of the Under-secretaries' Union know that when a Bill is given an airing by them in the presence of their Ministers, it nearly always is a dirty bit of business. This Bill is all of that. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who had the unenviable task of opening the debate, made a most unhappy speech. He sounded unhappy, he looked unhappy, and he clearly was unhappy. His unhappiness at making the speech was only equalled by our unhappiness at hearing it. He produced not one single argument for the Bill.
All the experts on tied cottages on the benches opposite have spoken tonight, but not one hon. Member has produced a single case here a cottage was not built or was not improved because of Section 10 of the original Act which this Bill seeks to amend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, no Government should mess about with a piece of legislation which is working extremely well. If legislation is to be altered, then some kind of prima facie evidence of the need to alter it should be forthcoming.
What the Government have done here is to interfere with an Act that was working perfectly well, and under which, as the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate said at great length, enormous good was being done. I think he said that nearly £10 million of public money is already committed. We only had £20 million, so we are already half way there before the half way stage is reached.
The hon. Gentleman said that enormous schemes of farming improvement were being embarked upon under the Act. but he stopped short in his brief when he was discreetly reminded that the Measure was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and not by the Tories Up to that point, he had said that it was a first-class piece of legislation and was doing well. To interfere with it after having boasted of all that is really going a wee bit far.
Let us be quite clear about this. Hon Gentlemen on the other side have talked about synthetic indignation over the tied cottage. I appeal to them to get it clearly into their heads that, in agriculture, the tied cottage is an issue about which people feel passionately—whether they


always feel logically is besides the point. From time to time I have expressed views about the tied cottage with which my friends do not agree, but I do beg of hon. Members opposite to recognise that the cases that occur of summary eviction, of eviction without thought, and of eviction in unhappy circumstances, do stir up the keenest of passions and the keenest of feelings. It is no use saying "It is the odd case—I have only heard of two"—they are deeply felt injustices.
There is a great difference in this between the agricultural industry and any other industry. If a worker, and particularly an isolated worker on an isolated holding—not a member of a community, nor one with other people easily available to encourage and help him—falls out with his employer, which can happen without all the blame being on the worker's side, and his employer says, "You must go, and you must leave the house," there is an element of hardship and injustice about that which does not apply to the fellow in a tied house in another industry where, being in a community, he can easily get advice and help, and where pressures and persuasion and all that can be brought to bear. It is a different case and must be borne in mind.

Brigadier Medlicott: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this question, could I obtain from him an answer which we have never obtained from him or from any of his colleagues before? If he holds these views about the place of tied cottages in agriculture, why did his Government for six years refrain deliberately from doing anything about it at all?

Mr. Brown: But we did a number of things about it, and the very thing which is now being amended is one of them. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would treat this a little more seriously, they would not get into the difficulty they are getting into now.
I was not saying that the tied cottage—the cottage going with the job—should never exist in agriculture. I have never said that. I was trying to persuade hon. Gentlemen at that stage that it is such a difficult thing, and something which involves such a degree of hardship at times, that it should therefore, be treated very gently and carefully indeed.
There is no issue on the countryside so easily capable of being stoked up into a burning issue as this. Many of us have had experience of trying to handle it gently, and what I have against the Government on this Bill is that, for no real gain to them or to the industry, they are going straight in to stoke up the whole controversy. The tenor of the debate tonight is the best example of that.
What we have had for most of the afternoon is the House devoting its attention to the injustices—or to the alleged advantages—of the tied cottage system, and what has been said on the other side of the House can now be used in the industry to bolster up whatever particular view someone wants to put. Thus, the whole controversy is stoked up again, and that would only be justified if, in fact, it could be shown that there was some advantage coming out of this Bill. Every Member who has spoken from the Government side has said, "Of course, I cannot show any evidence coming from it." [Interruption.] It is no use, if I heard the Minister aright, prompting the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say that we have stoked it up. We have not introduced the Bill. But the Bill having been introduced, the protection for the farm workers having been taken away, we would not be an Opposition worthy of our salt if we did not then come to defend the farm workers.

Major McCallum: I know cases which I could quote but, surely, the right hon. Gentleman does not expect that we have the right to break somebody's confidence and give names of cases. I could tell him of three names in my own area, but I am not giving them in public like that.

Mr. Brown: If hon. Members opposite had any evidence that more improvements would have been included in hill farming schemes but for Section 10, it is extraordinary that that one relevant thing has not, even by accident, been mentioned by anyone on the Government side in the last two hours. It would have leaked through somewhere, but nobody has said it. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) said, "Of course, I cannot show it." The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland just now said, "Of course, we cannot show it," but the hon.


and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) says, "I could show it, but I should be betraying confidences."

Major McCallum: Exactly.

Mr. Brown: They are all excuses, they are quite contradictory. The only fact that emerges is that nobody who theoretically supports the Bill has said what the evidence is. If the Minister, who is so shyly unwilling to take part in the debate, although so anxious to tell his Joint Parliamentary Secretary what he might say, has any evidence, let him give it to the hon. Gentleman so that he can deploy it in a minute or two.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many schemes—there is plenty of advice available, and I am willing to carry on until it comes down—have been submitted, including cottage improvements, which, after it has been pointed out to the applicants could not be allowed except on this condition, the applicants have then withdrawn? There must be evidence of some of them if there is any evidence for the Bill. I do not want names; let us have cases.
Let the Parliamentary Secretary also answer this. I cannot remember a single case of a demand, from an industry which is not shy of making its demands on Governments, as the Minister will know, that Section 10 should be amended. Has it been demanded or asked for? Has this come in answer to any pressure from within the industry, or has it simply been thought up in the Government because somebody said, "We did something like this in another Bill: we really ought to tidy this one up and bring this one in too"? I believe it is only for that purpose.
We have been told about how much money has been spent: nearly £10 million overall, of which, I gather, some 18 per cent. of the total expenditure in Scotland has been on farm cottages, and in England 4 per cent. One or two hon. Members seemed to talk as though, if this protection for the tenant were not in the parent Act, that expenditure would go on mounting. Of course it would not. There are 20 odd schemes of improvements in the Hill Farming Act. One cannot improve a hill farm by putting on all the cottages and fences, buildings and water, farmsteads, drainage, and hosts of things. If a much bigger percentage than that was

spent on farm cottages alone, I should suspect that something was going wrong with the hill farms. The balance should be kept, and there is no evidence at all that in these figures there is any such thing.

Major McCallum: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the 18 per cent. and he tells us about the number of schemes put forward comprising 18 per cent. to be expended on the cottages. But how many cottages have actually been undertaken? Remember the schemes may last for 20 years.

Mr. Brown: I cannot tell the hon. and gallant Member how many schemes have actually resulted. He must ask his right hon. Friend the Minister for that information. I am prepared to go over to the Treasury Bench and give the House a very good service in answers, but something has to happen before I get there and, in the meantime, he has to put up with his right hon. Friend, which is the best the party opposite can do. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of that query and give an answer.
There is nothing in the figures deployed from the other side which suggests that there is any need for this Bill at all. When the parent Act was introduced—and it has worked well in spite of all that Ministers can do—Section 10 was an arrangement so that the old fires could die down. The arrangement was that we would not, in fact, stir up hateful controversies, and the hill farmers have found that they can be with their cottages under schemes without getting into very great trouble of difficulty. The workers and the unions have found that we are not using public money deliberately to put power into the hands of the owners of the cottage as well as the employers of the men. They have been able to feel that the thing was not being made any worse.
There is talk about a drift from the land. I wish we could persuade hon Members opposite to listen to some of us on this subject. As the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said, it is the wife of the farm worker who in the end will determine whether he stays and works on the land or goes into industry. But most young women with their own homes, however good they may be, when they find they are dependent not only on the whim of the husband's employer but on the husband never falling out with the


employer, will not want to stay. That is going to be a most powerful deterrent to the young woman staying on the land.
Let us make no bones about it. We would be very wise to go carefully on this, and only have this tied cottage problem where we cannot do without it. I repeat that if Ministers could have shown that there were cases where this Act could not operate because of this particular provision, I would have been more than willing to listen carefully to the arguments about that, but they have failed to produce a single case where that is so.
Do not let us overdo this alleged protection. The hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central has been given the credit of being the author of this so-called protection for tenants which is known as the four weeks' business. Let us look at it. In the first place, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, the four weeks' protection applies in only three cases, the case of a man being dismissed with less than four weeks' notice by the employer; the dismissal of the employee without notice; or the death of either party. The tenant is not protected by the four weeks if he leaves of his own accord, no matter what the circumstances leading up to his leaving may be. After all, just as when employers and workers have a tiff and the employer says the man must leave, so it operates the other way at times.
As to the four weeks, when we were discussing the Housing Bill I said that in many cases the protection would become less than was being given before. The fact that previously people, even in the case of service tenant cottages as well as others, were tending to go to the county court before taking the law into their own hands for their own protection often meant that the man was getting more than four weeks' protection. To put four weeks in the Bill has meant that in practice protection for a large number of people has been whittled down to something less than what it was before. So we are not conceding anything.
We on this side of the House were responsible politically for the 1947 Act and for all that it conferred by way of guaranteed prices and security of tenure upon the farmers. The farm workers' unions have been noble supporters of the principle of that Act and of all its advantages

for farmers. It is silly deliberately to amend an Act which is working well in order to give the farm worker noticeably less security than the farm workers have seen that the farmer gets. If the degree of protection in this Bill had in any way interfered with the working of the Act, the argument might have been different, but it has not, and nobody has even tried to show that it has.
I wind up our case by saying that we were proud of the Hill Farming Act; we were proud to put it on the Statute Book. We have been proud of the progress made under it in improving the hill farms of Britain, not only because that means something for the farmer but, above all, because it means a long-term improvement of something of priceless value to this country. We were proud of all the money spent under it and of the jobs achieved under it. We do not want to see that Act wantonly interfered with by a Government that cannot produce an agricultural policy with any meaning, but must mess about in the agricultural field to make it look as if they are doing something.
Not a single contribution has been made by those Ministers opposite who boasted of their collective and several agricultural experience and knowledge when we were on those benches. Not a single contribution has come from any one of them to help to solve the problems as a result of which agriculture is suffering. Poultry farmers, gentleman farmers, land owners—all the experience is there on the benches opposite—and the industry goes on getting more and more in the mire, more and more in a muddle, more and more unsettled, as the meetings last week, and the dinner, showed.
Having nothing to say, they then descend to the final refuge of every Government devoid of constructive thought. They look round to see what their predecessors did and start to undo it. That is what they are doing. Anything that we did that they can undo they will undo, even though they have not the faintest clue about what to put in its place.
This is the undoing of something we did, the provision which we made to see that farming improvements on hill farms went forward on conditions that were satisfactory to everyone in the industry and which enabled the money to be spent to the best advantage. We oppose this


Bill partly for that reason, and partly because nobody in the House has made out a single tittle of evidence of there being any need for this interference with the parent Act. We oppose the Bill because of the stupidity of interfering for no reason at all with the kind of thing that can stir up so many emotions. We oppose it because of the badness and unreasonableness of using public money to give the landlord and employer, the one and the same person, a still larger hold over his worker.
We oppose the Bill for all those reasons. If it had not been introduced, the parent Act would have gone on doing the good which it has been doing up to now, and all the interests in the industry would have gone on being glad and pleased, including the Scottish Farm Servants and the Agricultural Workers Union. By introducing this miserable, wretched, mean little Bill, nothing better will be achieved under the Hill Farming Act. Not another penny will be spent on more improvements, but a number of people hitherto happy about the Act will have cause to be very unhappy indeed. I am surprised, shocked and disappointed that, having set their hands to such a miserable course, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have not had the courage to defend themselves.

9.42 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I acknowledge that there are warm, sincere feelings on this very knotty problem of the tied cottage, but it can be shown that these human feelings are present on both sides of the House, and that this is an argument which has been carried on on both sides, between both sides and within both sides. The mere fact that during the previous Administration it was not found possible or wise to abolish the tied cottage is more than sufficient evidence to show how difficult it is to find the right balance on this subject. Humanity is not found on the other side of the House only, nor is it peculiar to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). After listening to the right hon. Gentleman's winding-up speech, I felt like young Faulconbridge in "King John"
…never so bethumped with words.

But when I look at the substance of his argument I do not find so very much in it.
I shall deal with such positive evidence as there is of the need for the Bill, but I must stress the point made by several of my hon. Friends and particularly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) that the evidence of the deterrent effect of existing legislation is bound to be mainly negative; that is to say, in the main we shall not know the cases where farmers or landlords have not brought forward an application because they felt that it would be unwise for the cottage to be untied. Therefore, the positive evidence that I can give to the House is bound to be limited. Such as it is, I shall be glad to give it. At any rate it gives some evidence of how this deterrent effect works in the cases we know about.
The figures I can give are that in Scotland, on a very careful examination of all the cases, five schemes have actually been withdrawn, in 10 schemes applicants are doing work at their own expense, in one scheme the applicant is doing work under the Housing Act, in 16 cases applicants inquired about the Regulations and eventually cottages were included in the schemes—in some cases grant has been claimed and in others it has not and claims may not come forward—and in 12 cases applicants undertook to carry out cottage repairs out with the scheme but gave no reasons for so doing.
For England and Wales I have only a global picture. We found after examination that in 50 cases there was evidence to show that the applicant was deterred from going on with the scheme in regard to the cottage because he did not wish to have the cottage untied. I agree that those cases are relatively few, but I insist that in the main the evidence is bound to be largely negative because we cannot know of cases that have not come forward.

Mr. T. Williams: Surely the hon. Gentleman will not object to telling the House what percentage those figures represent of the number of schemes submitted and finally approved? After all, it is the percentage of cases that might


or might not have been withdrawn thanks to Section 10 which ought to guide the House in taking a decision tonight.

Mr. Nugent: No, I cannot agree. I think that it is a matter of judgment as to the extent that this has a deterrent effect. These figures are only some indication of the cases we know about. We cannot know about the cases that have not come forward.
I should like to give the House another piece of evidence which I think is relevant to this picture. This is evidence of the effect of the 1952 Act on reconditioning of farm cottages. The Act went on to the Statute book in August, 1952. Figures for England and Wales read as follows: for the three years ending 31st March, 1951, there were 358 applications for reconditioning grants; in the next year there were 691, and then the Act came in in August, 1952. In the year ending 31st March, 1953, there were 817 applications. That was a year half of which had the benefit of the grant given to a cottage which was a tied farm cottage as opposed to the untied cottage before. In the eight months from 1st April, 1953, to 30th November, 1953, there were 1,103 applications for reconditioning grants. That shows some evidence of an increase, although not a great increase.
When we turn to the Scottish figures we find that in 1950, 1951 and 1952 there were only 111 applications for reconditioning grants for farm cottages other than under the Hill Farming Act—that is, 37 a year. I immediately acknowledge that there were other factors, and year after year building conditions were becoming better, more particularly under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Nevertheless, in the year 1953 applications for reconditioning of farm cottages had gone up from an average of 37 a year to 1,186. So there is considerable evidence to show that a deterrent had been removed and that landowners and farmers who before were not willing to take a grant because they thought it was impracticable to untie a farm cottage were willing to apply when they could get the grant for a tied cottage.

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the figures of cases in which application for grant was made in

the earlier years do not represent the total number of cottages improved by farmers and landowners. Many were improved at the expense of the owner and the farmer.

Mr. Nugent: I thank the hon. Member for giving me a useful piece of evidence to show that landlords and farmers are interested in the human problem which confronts them. Of course it really has nothing to do with the argument. The fact was that neither of them was willing to take advantage of the grant when it meant that to do so they would have to untie the cottage. That is further evidence to show that there has been some deterrent effect, even in the Hill Farming Act, which I agree has gone forward well in its broad aspect and has done valuable work. There has nevertheless been, in our judgment, some deterrent effect in some cases which has held back the landlord or the farmer from building a new cottage or reconditioning an old one which he would have done if he knew that he could get the grant and still keep the cottage as a tied cottage.
It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend has brought this Measure before the House, because he feels, and we all feel, that it is right that this sector of agricultural housing should be brought into line with the rest, which was so much improved by the Housing Act, 1952. It is simply to remove that anomaly, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said, that this Measure is now before the House.
The whole basis of our thought in this matter is that in the farming industry the tied cottage is part of the structure of the farming industry. As was said by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for South Angus, and for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott), it is the custom of the industry that when a married man is engaged on a farm he expects the farmer to provide him with a cottage. When he goes to the farm to consider the engagement, he asks where the cottage is and takes his wife with him to see it. If he cannot have the cottage the man is unwilling to go to the farm. That might be said to be a good or bad thing, but there are certainly many practical justifications for the arrangement. That is why it has grown up. It is just a fact. The farm worker acknowledges it just as much as the farmer does.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells), who made a moving speech. Indeed, I sympathise with the strong feelings of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch). There have been hard cases. I also agree with the right hon. Member for Belper that the position of the employer can be abused. I am not saying that all farmers are angels. There are good and bad, as in every other walk of life. But then one could find the case of a farmworker who has left his place but, remaining in the cottage, goes to work somewhere else without regard to the fact that he is preventing the farmer from engaging someone else.
There are good and bad people everywhere but, taking the broad picture, there is no doubt that this is a system which serves the practical necessities of the industry. Livestock cannot be looked after unless the man lives on the job, and if the farm worker is given a choice of

whether he will occupy a cottage on the farm or one in the village, in99 cases out of 100 he will take the cottage on the farm.

I say that to underline the fact that we have given this matter as much thought and feeling as have hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The reason why we are bringing the Bill before the House now is that we want these cottages in the outlying districts—on the hill farms, in livestock rearing areas—to receive the same benefits of better accommodation as those in other areas. It is because we have that proper human feeling for thesepeople that we are now bringing the Bill before the House, and for those reasons I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes. 206.

Division No. 26.]
AYES
[9.55 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Davidson, Viscountess
Hollis, M. C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Deedes, W. F.
Holt, A. F.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hope, Lord John


Aster, Hon. J. J.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
Drewe, Sir C.
Horobin, I. M.


Banks, Col. C.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Barber, Anthony
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Barlow, Sir John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Baxter, A. B.
Erroll, F. J.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fell, A.
Hurd, A. R.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fisher, Nigel
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Foster, John
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bishop, F. P.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kerr, H. W.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lambton, Viscount


Bowen, E. R.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Leather, E. H. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Braine, B. R.
Glover, D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Sir Gurney
Godber, J. B.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gower, H. R.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bullard, D. G.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Longden, Gilbert


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Low, A. R. W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Grimond, J.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Carr, Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Channon, H.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McCallum, Major D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Harden, J. R. E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McKibbin, A. J.


Cole, Norman
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Colegate, W. A.
Hay, John
Maclean, Fitzroy


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Heath, Edward
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Markham, Major Sir Frank



Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)





Marples, A. E.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Teeling, W.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maudling, R.
Redmayne, M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Mellor, Sir John
Renton, D. L. M.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Molson, A. H. E.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Robertson, Sir David
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Neave, Airey
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Turton, R. H.


Nicholls, Harmar
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Russell, R. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Vosper, D. F.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Scott, R. Donald
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Oakshott, H. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Snadden, W. McN.
Watkinson, H. A.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Soames, Capt. C.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminter)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wellwood, W.


Osborne, C.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Page, R. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Perkins, Sir Robert
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wills, G.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Storey, S.
Wood, Hon. R.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)



Pitt, Miss E. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Kaberry.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Fienburgh, W.
King, Dr. H. M.


Adams, Richard
Finch, H. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Follick, M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lewis, Arthur


Awbery, S. S.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lindgren, G. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Logan, D. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacColl, J. E.


Bartley, P.
Gibson, C. W.
McGhee, H. G.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Gooch, E. G.
McInnes, J.


Benson, G.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McLeavy, F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grey, C. F.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bowden, H. W.
Hale, Leslie
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bowles, F. G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mason, Roy


Brockway, A. F.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mellish, R. J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hannan, W.
Messer, Sir F.


Brown Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hardy, E. A.
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hargreaves, A.
Mitchison, G. R.


Burke, W. A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Monslow, W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hastings, S.
Moody, A. S.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hayman, F. H.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Callaghan, L. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds S.E.)
Morley, R.


Carmichael, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Mort, D. L.


Chapman, W. D.
Holman, P.
Moyle, A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Holmes, Horace
Mulley, F. W.


Clunie, J.
Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Coldrick, W.
Hoy, J. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Collick, P. H.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
O'Brien, T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.


Craddock George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, W. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paget, R. T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Deer, G.
Janner, B.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Delargy, H. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pannell, Charles


Dodds, N. N.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Parker, J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Peart, T. F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Edelman, M.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Popplewell, E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Porter, G.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Keenan, W.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, C.
Proctor, W. T.



Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.








Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Weitzman, D.


Reeves J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Steele, T.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Rhodes, H.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
West, D. G.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Ross, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Royle, C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Witkins, W. A.


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, F. T.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Short, E. W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon.Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thornton. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Tomney, F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Skeffington, A. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Viant, S. P.
Wyatt, W. L.


Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Wallace, H. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Watkins, T. E.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Committee Tomorrow.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period during which advances may be made to the National Research Development Corporation out of the Consolidated Fund and during which the Board of Trade may waive interest on such advances, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase in the sums which in accordance with section eleven of the Development of Inventions Act, 1948, fall to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund or raised under the National Loans Act, 1939, or in accordance with section twelve of that Act fall to be paid into the Exchequer or issued out of the Consolidated Fund and applied in redeeming or paying off debt or paying interest;
(b) any waiver of interest in accordance with section eight of that Act;
being an increase or waiver attributable to extending the said period.

Orders of the Day — DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(Functions of Corporation RELATING TO RESEARCH.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. John Edwards: The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) raised questions relating to Clause 2 (2). Perhaps he will be kind enough to give me some interpretation of the words "practical requirements" and "brought to the knowledge of the Corporation." I hope the latter words do not exclude the possibility of the Corporation's bringing a matter to its own knowledge through its staff encountering points which they consider come within the subsection. I should be grateful for an explanation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): Under Clause 2 (2) the industry must have "practical requirements" but no special method is laid down by which these must come to the knowledge of the Corporation. It is not intended by the Measure to give the Corporation general powers to undertake surveys or investigations to discover the practical needs of industry. That can best be done by industry itself, although perhaps with the help and encouragement of Departments, and possibly with the help and at the suggestion of the Corporation.
Once such an investigation has established that an industry would benefit—if, for example, a machine or a piece of plant would be capable of carrying out certain specified operations and there was a reasonable prospect of producing such a machine or plant—the powers to be given to the Corporation will enable them to step in and to take the responsibility for getting the research done. I believe that


that is what right hon. Gentlemen had in mind, and I hope that with that explanation they will be content with the Clause.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARRIED WOMEN)

10.9 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): I beg to move:
That the Draft National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.
These Regulations are submitted in accordance with my right hon. Friend's policy of doing away with unnecessary complications in the National Insurance Scheme. At present a married woman who has fewer than 45 contributions in any Class paid or credited in a contribution year loses her right to pay contributions as a non-employed person or to count for the purposes of unemployment or sickness benefit contributions paid for employment in Class 1 or Class 2 after the end of the contribution year until she has satisfied a re-qualifying condition of 52 Class 1 or Class 2 contributions paid or credited, of which at least 26 have to be paid.
Regulation 4 abolishes this 45 test, and the remainder of the Regulations are of a minor character. They are designed, for the benefit of married women, to simplify the rules governing their position in National Insurance. They have been examined and approved of by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which also approved the draft Regulations. If the House approves of these Regulations, it is intended to bring them into operation from the first Monday in March. For that reason, I ask the House to approve of them.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary

for the explanation which he has given of the Regulations, and I share his pleasure that the 45 test, as far as married women are concerned, is now to go. We approve of the Regulations.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCIENCE TEACHERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. M. Follick: I entered this item in the Adjournment Book in the early part of December, before the Christmas Recess, and, since then, this matter of the shortage of teachers in schools has had tremendous publicity in the Press. This shortage of teachers can undermine our very existence as a nation unless something is done to solve the problem. If we have not got the teachers in the schools, we cannot have the pupils; if we have not got the pupils, we cannot have the students; if we have not got the students, we cannot have the graduates, and without the graduates we cannot have the scientists.
Since the end of the First World War, our industry has developed largely on a basis of the introduction of scientists into industry to assist in industrial expansion. We were far behind both Germany and the United States in the scientific development of industry. Indeed, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was founded in 1860, less than 100 years after America had achieved her independence. In Germany, the Charlottenburg High School of Technology, which is known as the Charlottenburg Physikalisch Technische Reichsanstalt, was founded in 1880, less than 10 years after Germany had come together as a nation. In fact, Germany spent over 10 million marks, and, in those days of 1880, marks were 20 to the £ on a gold basis, so that both Germany and America understood the problem of the intervention of science into industry much better than we did in this country. Since the First World War, our industry has developed very rapidly on a basis of scientific development.
But unless we continue the flow of scientists, industry cannot go ahead and compete with the other scientifically developed industries in the world. This is much more important for us than for any other nation, because we are more vulnerable in this respect than any other people on earth. We have more than 51 million inhabitants in these islands, and no natural exportable resources. True, we have coal, but if we are to expand our industry sufficiently for us to live, we shall not have any coal to export. We have to import nearly half the food we require and nearly all the resources we need for our industry. For all this, we depend upon the export of manufactures to bring in the food and the raw products. Without all this, we cannot exist or even survive. If we are to export our manufactured products in competition with the most highly developed nations in the world, we must have the scientists. Unless we have teachers in the schools, we cannot have scientists in industry.
Not only will our industries be threatened by this shortage of science teachers, but our shipping. If we have not the exports, we cannot maintain our shipping; with our shipping goes marine insurance, and with all that goes the City of London. We depend upon a very small band of people for our livelihood, reminding us of those desperate days of 1940 when we depended upon another small band of people for our life. The struggle is in the hands of that very small band. Unless we solve this problem, our very survival as a nation is threatened.
The difficulty is being increased by industry itself, which can and does offer a much higher level of remuneration, better conditions and easier existence to the scientists than they get by teaching in schools. The attraction for the young man faced with teaching in schools or going into industry often sways in favour of industry. As industry expands, it absorbs more scientists, and unless something is done to level out the distribution of scientists, industry itself will have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is this very balance between industry and education which is being threatened to the point of extinction by the prosperity of industry brought about by the knowledge and work of the scientists in the development of industry.
The Federation of British Industries is so alarmed about this position and about the future outlook that, on 15th January last, it called a mixed conference of educationists of high standing and representatives of British industry to see what could be done to get a better distribution. I read very carefully the report of that conference, but there was nothing in them, as far as I could see, of any great event that could solve the problem.
A little later in my speech I am going to make some very revolutionary proposals, because one has to be revolutionary in dealing with a position which, although not serious at the moment, will in the next 10 or 15 years become more than serious. As I have related, the cause of the trouble is the higher remuneration offered by industry to young people who have to earn their living. It might be said, why not pay them a rate of remuneration that could compete with industry and offer them promotion that could compete with industry.
I have had a lengthy correspondence with the chairmen of four of our giant industries. I.C.I., de Havillands, Unilever and Shell. The chairmen of these four great branches of industry put their experts at my disposal in order to furnish me with as much information as possible. From the educational side, I have taken four people from outstanding establishments of education, the director of Nottingham University, the headmaster of Uppingham, the president of Lough-borough College, and the headmaster of Loughborough Grammar School. They have all helped me in bringing forward the proposals I have to make in this debate tonight. In their letters to me, each one of them recognises that this is not a problem, but a danger. It is a danger which we shall have to overcome, because, unless we do, it will be very difficult for us to maintain anything like the level of livelihood that we enjoy today.
In mentioning these distinguished people, I must also tender my thanks to the American Embassy, because its representatives have given me all possible information about how the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is being run and the benefit it represents to American industry. Some of our great firms, such as Shell, have pressed our universities to


adopt courses and to promote departments in their establishments for the development of scientific industrial expansion. Shell gave about £500,000 to Cambridge University to found a chair of chemical engineering and also promoted the teaching of geophysics in our universities. Other firms have also given large sums of money to our teaching establishments to help us in this difficult problem, and such matters will be part of what I shall recommend presently.
I find that no headmaster agrees with the payment of a differential rate.

Mr. Ralph Morley: Hear, hear.

Mr. Follick: We have in the hon. Member an authority, belonging to the National Union of Teachers, which does not agree with it either.
Nevertheless they all have to employ expedients to get science teachers, and here I will quote from letters from the headmasters of Uppingham School and of Loughborough Grammar School. I have told them that I might be using some of their correspondence in my speech. The headmaster of Loughborough Grammar School, Mr. Pullinger, says:
I, myself, although I have been very fortunate in retaining my science masters, experienced the difficulty in mathematics three or four years ago. when, in spite of repeated advertisements, I found it impossible to secure a man qualified to teach mathematics to Sixth Form level.
I have just been speaking to the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) who says that in Stafford they had great difficulty in obtaining science teachers and that the difficulty is so acute that some schools have had to close down their science departments. If we are to close our departments of science for want of teachers we cannot possibly have either the students or the graduates who would turn into scientists, and the supply will therefore dry up.
I wish now to quote what the headmaster of Uppingham School has to say:
In common with, I think, most headmasters, I am strongly opposed to upsetting the harmony and balance of a school staff by paying science masters more than those who are teaching other subjects. Despite this view, one is forced to expedients such as granting one or two extra increments to scientists in order to get them in the first place.

In almost every case, therefore, some extraordinary treatment has to be given in order to get science or mathematics masters in schools, and, if that be the case, why not face the matter bravely and, instead of these expedients, and this going round the corner business, make a differential? We shall have to do it sooner or later. We shall have to make a differential in order to attract science and mathematics teachers back to the schools.
It may be said that this would not be fair to the arts teacher who goes through the same studies and the same long university training to reach his position. But there is a great difference. I am sorry for the arts teacher, but when we want to obtain a scarce commodity in the market we have to pay more for it.

Mr. Morley: Is my hon. Friend aware that women teachers are harder to obtain than men at present, and therefore, on the basis of that argument, would he be in favour of paying women teachers more than men teachers?

Mr. Follick: I am coming to women teachers, do not worry. I was saying that the arts teacher has little other outlet for his experience and training, whereas the science teacher has not only industry but the scientific Civil Service. What is more, the science teacher is vital to our existence. We could go a year or two without Latin or Greek or history or geography and still survive, but we shall not be able to survive unless we overcome the difficulty of getting science teachers in our schools.
I refrained purposely from calling this Adjourment debate "Shortage of Science Masters" and instead called it "Shortage of Science Teachers. "That was because according to the report of the Advisory Council, the shortage of women teachers is even more acute than the shortage of men teachers; in fact, the report mentions this shortage of women teachers six times.

Mr. Morley: All women teachers, not merely women science teachers.

Mr. Follick: I am talking about science teachers—the subject of this debate. Therefore I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, under these conditions of such a shortage of women teachers, if it was wise of the Burnham Committee to make a


sex differential in their salary-increases? Why not have given them all the same increments? I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to ask the Minister that there shall be no sex differential in the case of special responsibility allowances. It is hard enough to get the teachers now, but if we make the sex differential continuous, it will be impossible in the future.
At the beginning of the century there was little outlet for women's labour. A woman could be a shop assistant, she could become a domestic servant, she could have a junior post in the Civil Service, or she could be a teacher. Now, however, there are as many outlets for women's labour as there are for that of men. So I ask the hon. Gentleman to appeal to the Minister not to approve any special responsibility allowances where there is a sex differential. The L.C.C. have abolished them. Why make a woman an inferior being when she is doing a job which a man is paid more to do?
As time is running on I must bring forward the revolutionary proposals about which I was speaking. I have explained how M.I.T. and the Charlottenburg High School of Technology were founded for helping the scientific expansion of industry. Industry supports M.I.T. whole-heartedly in the United States. Eastman, the Kodak man, left 20 million dollars to M.I.T. The last figures I have are for 1951, when eight million dollars were given to M.I.T. by American industry.
Now, what am I going to propose as my first revolutionary suggestion? It is that Loughborough College be taken over and become an ancillary of British industry; that British industry goes in, to a large extent, to finance Loughborough College and also gives guidance to that college in the kind of sciences, physics, or mathematics which British industry desires for its expansion and development. The one person whom I should have thought would have objected to this idea is the president of the college. But no; on the contrary, he comes out whole-heartedly in favour of it. Much to my surprise he has written to me in favour of the plan, and I will read what he has written:
Your suggestion does mark a break from our traditional method of providing technical education, and I think that there is a need for breaking from this tradition. The national

colleges set up in about six branches inside technical colleges have done a little in the way you talk of going, but progress is very slow indeed. I feel that our method at Loughborough, of gaining the confidence and thence the collaboration of industry, will produce results, but only slowly, and I constantly wonder whether the country can afford this slow development. I am, therefore, in favour of your suggestion, though I realise that a great deal of effort and determination will be necessary to put it into effect.
That is my first revolutionary proposal and in it I have the backing of the president of Loughborough College. What would be the result of this? The result would be that Loughborough College would be there as an ancillary of British industry, producing the scientists, the physicists and the mathematicians which British industry requires, leaving the universities and training colleges to provide the teachers in schools and colleges. Therefore, one would get a flow from the schools to the universities on the one hand, and the flow from Loughborough College to industry on the other. Hon. Members may ask why I specify Loughborough College. I do so, not because I have the honour to represent Loughborough, tout because this college is recognised as the principal engineering and technological college in the Commonwealth. Under my proposal, one line would go to industry and one towards the educational services.
I have much to say, and my second proposal is one which has already been discussed; that is the aspect of National Service and attracting teachers if they were exempt from it. I have not received any whole-hearted—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is now proposing something which would require legislation.

Mr. Follick: I am only making suggestions for consideration.
In Germany, before the First World War, they had a system, Das Einjährige system, under which a student served only one year for National Service. He did his National Service and continued his studies at the same time. He wore his uniform during this year, but there was no alteration in his status. He did not live in barracks, but continued at home or wherever he normally resided. He continued his studies and his National Service at one and the same time. If we could have some similar service to that


German system of pre-1914 days, it might appeal to people and they might like to do it, saying, "Well, we are serving our country in two ways, in that we are training to become teachers and we are doing our National Service at the same time."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): The hon. Gentleman is not only making a speech, but he is preventing me from making one.

Mr. Follick: The hon. Member has prevented me before from doing so.

These are two considerations of a revolutionary character, but, as I have pointed out, of a totally acceptable—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.